Author
Topic: Sign of the Cross according to the Old Rite (Read 28801 times)

There is much available online about how one makes the sign of the Cross according to the Old Rite, but very little about when. In current practice, when to make the Sign of the Cross is generally a matter of personal preference. In the Old Rite, however, the Sign of the Cross, like bows and prostrations, is only made when called for in the rubrics of the service. Old Believers therefore tend to make the Sign of the Cross less often than we do - it is not done at every invocation of the Holy Trinity, for example, contrary to modern practice.

John Alden very kindly gave me a link to the Ustav (Typikon) in Slavonic and said the appropriate times for crossing oneself is indicated there. Unfortunately I am not able to read Slavonic, so I was wondering if anyone had access to anything in English or simply knew from personal experience/observation.

But I read online that Pope Innocent III changed the whole practice of the sign of the cross.

I also read that when they changed the Old Rite in Russia, many Monks and Laity of the Old Believers were martyred because they did not want to change to the new rite. This was is 1666-1667 when they changed to the new-rite. The Year of the antichrist?

But the Old Believers make the sign of the cross in the original way it was made to be done. The Pantocrator Icon from Sinai in the 6th Century confirms this, as do other icons.

« Last Edit: April 30, 2010, 07:16:41 PM by DeathToTheWorld »

Logged

100. Like a bee one should extract from each of the virtues what is most profitable. In this way, by taking a small amount from all of them, one builds up from the practice of the virtues a great honeycomb overflowing with the soul-delighting honey of wisdom.

I have, it's a wonderful publication. It indicates when to do the Sign of the Cross at certain points during the morning and evening rules, but not for the Divine Services (Vespers, Compline, Midnight, Matins, the Hours, Liturgy). I also got hold of a .pdf with the Church of the Nativity, Erie's full text of the Divine Liturgy, but there is no mention of when the congregants should cross themselves.

Quote

But I read online that Pope Innocent III changed the whole practice of the sign of the cross.

I also read that when they changed the Old Rite in Russia, many Monks and Laity of the Old Believers were martyred because they did not want to change to the new rite. This was is 1666-1667 when they changed to the new-rite. The Year of the antichrist?

But the Old Believers make the sign of the cross in the original way it was made to be done. The Pantocrator Icon from Sinai in the 6th Century confirms this, as do other icons.

Indeed, but that all pertains to how one makes the Sign of the Cross. I'm specifically looking for information on when it is to be done during the Divine Services according to Old Rite practice.

The Psalter by Patriarch Joseph (1646) contained instructions of when to perform "bows" (which would include the sign of the cross since I don't think that Old Believers bow without doing so, nor do I believe that they make the sign of the cross without bowing). Excerpts for this work or contained in the original edition of the Old Orthodox Prayer Book. The new edition does not have this information. If you cannot find the old edition of the Prayer Book, I may be able to scan the section from mine.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Thank you for your reply. The 2nd edition of the Prayer Book does have excerpts from the Psalter concerning bows, although I'm not sure they are as extensive as the 1st edition. There are certain points during the morning and evening rules when the sign of the Cross is prescribed without a bow (e.g. before 'O Heavenly King' and the Creed). Is that applicable only to the domestic rule?

But I read online that Pope Innocent III changed the whole practice of the sign of the cross.

I also read that when they changed the Old Rite in Russia, many Monks and Laity of the Old Believers were martyred because they did not want to change to the new rite. This was is 1666-1667 when they changed to the new-rite. The Year of the antichrist?

But the Old Believers make the sign of the cross in the original way it was made to be done. The Pantocrator Icon from Sinai in the 6th Century confirms this, as do other icons.

Actually, the Old Believers make the sign of the cross the incorrect way... If you read the Fathers or other early Christian writings (especially from the "Golden Age of the Church") it is clear that most Christians made the sign of the cross the way the Orthodox do today. I remember reading that even back then, the west made the sign of the cross the opposite way even before the schism.

The reforms changed it to the right way to conform with the other Eastern Orthodox Churches...

There is nothing right about the Old Believers, I feel sorry for Orthodox Christians who are deceived by them...

Actually, the Old Believers make the sign of the cross the incorrect way... If you read the Fathers or other early Christian writings (especially from the "Golden Age of the Church") it is clear that most Christians made the sign of the cross the way the Orthodox do today. I remember reading that even back then, the west made the sign of the cross the opposite way even before the schism.

Which Fathers?

Quote

There is nothing right about the Old Believers, I feel sorry for Orthodox Christians who are deceived by them...

How do you make the basis for that? The Church disagrees with you since the Old Rite is accepted. I know their are some Old Rite churches in Russia that are under the Moscow Patriarchate. Here in America, we have the Church of the Nativity in Erie under the ROCOR.

The main importance is that orthodox adhere to the deposit of Faith. Don't get caught up on externals. Even the EP told pat. Nikhon Russian practise wasn't violating that ..too bad the letter arrived after pat. Nikhon started his transformation of the liturgicon. Point being that it makes no sense to argue about such things like how many fingers to use to sign your self. What us important is to take that fighting energy and carry out the commandments Christ set forth in Matthew chapter 25

Actually, the Old Believers make the sign of the cross the incorrect way... If you read the Fathers or other early Christian writings (especially from the "Golden Age of the Church") it is clear that most Christians made the sign of the cross the way the Orthodox do today. I remember reading that even back then, the west made the sign of the cross the opposite way even before the schism.

Which Fathers?

Quote

There is nothing right about the Old Believers, I feel sorry for Orthodox Christians who are deceived by them...

How do you make the basis for that? The Church disagrees with you since the Old Rite is accepted. I know their are some Old Rite churches in Russia that are under the Moscow Patriarchate. Here in America, we have the Church of the Nativity in Erie under the ROCOR.

I didn't say anything about the Old Rite, I was talking about the Old Believers, that is, those who are still separated from the Orthodox Church... There isn't anything really wrong with those who are a part of the Orthodox Church that practice the Old Rite... There is everything wrong with those who are schismatics and heretics and separate themselves from the Church...

Also, I'm not sure which Fathers, but Early Christian writings such as:

Quote

This is how to bless someone with your hand and make the sign of the cross over them. Hold three fingers, as equals, together, to represent the Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. These are not three gods, but one God in Trinity. The names are separate, but the divinity one. The Father was never incarnate; the Son incarnate, but not created; the Holy Ghost neither incarnate nor created, but issued from the Godhead: three in a single divinity. Divinity is one force and has one honor. They receive on obeisance from all creation, both angels and people. Thus the decree for these three fingers. You should hold the other two fingers slightly bent, not completely straight. This is because these represent the dual nature of Christ, divine and human. God in His divinity, and human in His incarnation, yet perfect in both. The upper finger represents divinity, and the lower humanity; this way salvation goes from the higher finger to the lower. So is the bending of the fingers interpreted, for the worship of Heaven comes down for our salvation. This is how you must cross yourselves and give a blessing, as the holy fathers have commanded. - Saint Theodoret, ca. 5th Century

Then Pope Innocent III in the 13th Century...

Quote

The sign of the cross is made with three fingers, because the signing is done together with the invocation of the Trinity. ... This is how it is done: from above to below, and from the right to the left, because Christ descended from the heavens to the earth, and from the Jews (right) He passed to the Gentiles (left). Others, however, make the sign of the cross from the left to the right, because from misery (left) we must cross over to glory (right), just as Christ crossed over from death to life, and from Hades to Paradise. [Some priests] do it this way so that they and the people will be signing themselves in the same way. You can easily verify this — picture the priest facing the people for the blessing — when we make the sign of the cross over the people, it is from left to right..

Thank you for your reply. The 2nd edition of the Prayer Book does have excerpts from the Psalter concerning bows, although I'm not sure they are as extensive as the 1st edition. There are certain points during the morning and evening rules when the sign of the Cross is prescribed without a bow (e.g. before 'O Heavenly King' and the Creed). Is that applicable only to the domestic rule?

Page 347 in the new Prayer Book. I believe that this section is applicable during the Liturgy and not just for the the cell rule.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Actually, the Old Believers make the sign of the cross the incorrect way... If you read the Fathers or other early Christian writings (especially from the "Golden Age of the Church") it is clear that most Christians made the sign of the cross the way the Orthodox do today. I remember reading that even back then, the west made the sign of the cross the opposite way even before the schism.

Which Fathers?

Quote

There is nothing right about the Old Believers, I feel sorry for Orthodox Christians who are deceived by them...

How do you make the basis for that? The Church disagrees with you since the Old Rite is accepted. I know their are some Old Rite churches in Russia that are under the Moscow Patriarchate. Here in America, we have the Church of the Nativity in Erie under the ROCOR.

I didn't say anything about the Old Rite, I was talking about the Old Believers, that is, those who are still separated from the Orthodox Church... There isn't anything really wrong with those who are a part of the Orthodox Church that practice the Old Rite... There is everything wrong with those who are schismatics and heretics and separate themselves from the Church...

Also, I'm not sure which Fathers, but Early Christian writings such as:

Quote

This is how to bless someone with your hand and make the sign of the cross over them. Hold three fingers, as equals, together, to represent the Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. These are not three gods, but one God in Trinity. The names are separate, but the divinity one. The Father was never incarnate; the Son incarnate, but not created; the Holy Ghost neither incarnate nor created, but issued from the Godhead: three in a single divinity. Divinity is one force and has one honor. They receive on obeisance from all creation, both angels and people. Thus the decree for these three fingers. You should hold the other two fingers slightly bent, not completely straight. This is because these represent the dual nature of Christ, divine and human. God in His divinity, and human in His incarnation, yet perfect in both. The upper finger represents divinity, and the lower humanity; this way salvation goes from the higher finger to the lower. So is the bending of the fingers interpreted, for the worship of Heaven comes down for our salvation. This is how you must cross yourselves and give a blessing, as the holy fathers have commanded. - Saint Theodoret, ca. 5th Century

Then Pope Innocent III in the 13th Century...

Quote

The sign of the cross is made with three fingers, because the signing is done together with the invocation of the Trinity. ... This is how it is done: from above to below, and from the right to the left, because Christ descended from the heavens to the earth, and from the Jews (right) He passed to the Gentiles (left). Others, however, make the sign of the cross from the left to the right, because from misery (left) we must cross over to glory (right), just as Christ crossed over from death to life, and from Hades to Paradise. [Some priests] do it this way so that they and the people will be signing themselves in the same way. You can easily verify this — picture the priest facing the people for the blessing — when we make the sign of the cross over the people, it is from left to right..

Actually, it is you that is incorrect. If you read the writing of St. Theodoret, he says to hold three fingers equally. He does not specify which ones. The Old Russian sign of the cross holds three equally. He also says that the remaining two should be SLIGHTLY bent. This is how the Old Russian sign is made, with the index and middle fingers slightly bent. The modern practice is to hold the remaining two FULLY bent. I am not saying that either practice is wrong because I really don't think that God gives a rodent's posterior over trivial matters such as this. I am saying that your "proof" fro the modern method is actually the proof for the ancient Old Rite method. So much so that St. Theodoret is used as the basis for the Old Rite way in the Old Orthodox Prayer Book.

As to Innocent III, why would any Orthodox Christian care what he had to say? He was not Orthodox.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Whne you form your hand into this position, which part of the hand do you touch your forehead with? The part where the three fingers come together? That seem awkward. Just in index finger? Also seems awkward.

I really do not see what people find attractive about the Old Believers, everything screams cult and pharisee... Honestly I'm sick about hearing about them. Many of the Old Believers aren't even Orthodox and so I don't see why there is any interest in them. They are not right and never have been right, they committed heresy and have been schismatics ever since they split from the Church. They aren't any different from any other non-Orthodox groups out there.Again, I do not really see why anyone has an interest in these people, I've only found them to be very pharisaic and self-righteous...

Also, when I refer to the Old Believers, I'm referring to those who remained in schism, not those who were reunited to the MP.

I really do not see what people find attractive about the Old Believers, everything screams cult and pharisee... Honestly I'm sick about hearing about them. Many of the Old Believers aren't even Orthodox and so I don't see why there is any interest in them. They are not right and never have been right, they committed heresy and have been schismatics ever since they split from the Church. They aren't any different from any other non-Orthodox groups out there.Again, I do not really see why anyone has an interest in these people, I've only found them to be very pharisaic and self-righteous...

Also, when I refer to the Old Believers, I'm referring to those who remained in schism, not those who were reunited to the MP.

People are interested in them because they embody certain ideals of Orthodoxy: rigid conservatism, an ideal of a literally unchanging faith of which ritual is not exempt, et cetera. If you studied the circumstances surrounding the Nikonian reforms you wouldn't take such a ridiculous stance, and anyone would have to concede that many innovations came later which altered the entire feel and savor of Russian Orthodoxy. Later on, the simple chants became complex polyphonic choral arrangements, the traditionally Byzantine iconography was replaced with western European Renaissance paintings, and Russian theology was infiltrated by all sorts of Latin devotions and heterodox theological formulae.

Blind obedience to bishops is not always the Orthodox Way. Reforms are not intrinsically bad, but the manner and spirit of reforms makes all of the difference.

Do you consider the "Miaphysites" to be Orthodox, but not the Old Believers? Because the Old Believers surely have a lot more in common with us than the "Orientals" do, so I wouldn't paint with such broad strokes.

Not any different than the non-Orthodox groups? I will strongly disagree.

I really do not see what people find attractive about the Old Believers, everything screams cult and pharisee... Honestly I'm sick about hearing about them. Many of the Old Believers aren't even Orthodox and so I don't see why there is any interest in them. They are not right and never have been right, they committed heresy and have been schismatics ever since they split from the Church. They aren't any different from any other non-Orthodox groups out there.Again, I do not really see why anyone has an interest in these people, I've only found them to be very pharisaic and self-righteous...

Old Believers interest me simply because they have kept liturgical practices and customs that reflect a more ancient usage than what is used in the Orthodox Church today. Their communities are like time capsules that allow us to look into the past and actually see these things in action rather than simply read about them in books and rely on artificial reconstructions.

Whne you form your hand into this position, which part of the hand do you touch your forehead with? The part where the three fingers come together? That seem awkward. Just in index finger? Also seems awkward.

I have seen it done with just the two fingers, or with all at once. I tend toward the latter. It is whatever you are used to. I find no problem with it.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

I really do not see what people find attractive about the Old Believers, everything screams cult and pharisee... Honestly I'm sick about hearing about them. Many of the Old Believers aren't even Orthodox and so I don't see why there is any interest in them. They are not right and never have been right, they committed heresy and have been schismatics ever since they split from the Church. They aren't any different from any other non-Orthodox groups out there.Again, I do not really see why anyone has an interest in these people, I've only found them to be very pharisaic and self-righteous...

Also, when I refer to the Old Believers, I'm referring to those who remained in schism, not those who were reunited to the MP.

Well, that is your opinion, and you know what they say about opinions. Look at the history. I suppose real Orthodox people burn people at the stake and put them in cold water until they die. If someone did to my family what the "Orthodox Church" did to the Old Believers, I would never have anything to do with "Orthodoxy" again. As to heresy, I have found nothing at all heretical regarding their teachings. I find them far preferable to the modernist drivel that I have seen coming out of some of the current seminaries. I have really had to compromise a lot of my beliefs to become part of "mainstream" Orthodoxy. Often I wonder if that is right to do.

« Last Edit: May 01, 2010, 05:50:43 PM by Punch »

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

I really do not see what people find attractive about the Old Believers, everything screams cult and pharisee... Honestly I'm sick about hearing about them. Many of the Old Believers aren't even Orthodox and so I don't see why there is any interest in them. They are not right and never have been right, they committed heresy and have been schismatics ever since they split from the Church. They aren't any different from any other non-Orthodox groups out there.Again, I do not really see why anyone has an interest in these people, I've only found them to be very pharisaic and self-righteous...

Old Believers interest me simply because they have kept liturgical practices and customs that reflect a more ancient usage than what is used in the Orthodox Church today. Their communities are like time capsules that allow us to look into the past and actually see these things in action rather than simply read about them in books and rely on artificial reconstructions.

It is interesting, but their ritual is dead, without being in the Church, it really doesn't mean anything. It is cool to see how things use to be, but it's simply sad to see that these people worship their rites and rituals more than God himself... Their churches seem to simply be a "Christian" reconstruction of the pharisaic way...

I would say though that the three fingers is the older practice. From what I've read on the history of things, the Eastern Churches have crossed themselves in this way for a long time, so the Old Believers weren't holding onto anything that was "more Orthodox" than the Orthodox. Granted, many of the reforms were unnecessary, and sure, some were outright stupid and may have "westernized" it... However the reforms also brought the Russian Church closer in rites and worship to the other EO Churches. I read that the goal of the reforms was to bring the Russian Church closer to the Greek and Antiochian Churches, and was not actually an attempt to "westernize" or Latinize the Russian Church.

Again, the Old Believers just brought condemnation onto themselves when they refused to be a part of the church...

It is interesting, but their ritual is dead, without being in the Church, it really doesn't mean anything. It is cool to see how things use to be, but it's simply sad to see that these people worship their rites and rituals more than God himself... Their churches seem to simply be a "Christian" reconstruction of the pharisaic way...

Again, the Old Believers just brought condemnation onto themselves when they refused to be a part of the church...

How do know their rituals are dead? Many are very faithful to God and they saw the reforms as not only against Orthodox but against Christ as well. Its easy to see why they would break away from the Church when the Church is ordering them to be burned at the steak for not accepting reforms. That is why many of them are not in communion; it is a lack of trust. The scars are deep. I don't see the reason in judging them the way you are by saying they have no real faith. As I've said though, not all Old Believers are out of the Church. Those who have joined the MP or ROCOR still practice the old faith with the older liturgy and doing the two fingers sign of the Cross. I cannot blame them for breaking communion with the Church really because of the ways the reforms were implemented.

It is interesting, but their ritual is dead, without being in the Church, it really doesn't mean anything. It is cool to see how things use to be, but it's simply sad to see that these people worship their rites and rituals more than God himself... Their churches seem to simply be a "Christian" reconstruction of the pharisaic way...

Again, the Old Believers just brought condemnation onto themselves when they refused to be a part of the church...

How do know their rituals are dead? Many are very faithful to God and they saw the reforms as not only against Orthodox but against Christ as well. Its easy to see why they would break away from the Church when the Church is ordering them to be burned at the steak for not accepting reforms. That is why many of them are not in communion; it is a lack of trust. The scars are deep. I don't see the reason in judging them the way you are by saying they have no real faith. As I've said though, not all Old Believers are out of the Church. Those who have joined the MP or ROCOR still practice the old faith with the older liturgy and doing the two fingers sign of the Cross. I cannot blame them for breaking communion with the Church really because of the ways the reforms were implemented.

This guy is an Old Believer,here is the information that he has gathered about the siege of the monastery:

I used to visit the site alot, but just as with all other conspiracy websites (I used to be obsessed with conspiracy theories), it is just a huge waste of my time and my thinking power. It just draws you in, like a fish who has caught a hook. I spoke with Met Jonah a few months ago about those kinds of websites and he said that it was like pornography that people are advertizing. I understand now what he meant.

I don't altogether condemn reading the things on that sight, just be warned.

It has truth, as well as exaggerations.

« Last Edit: May 02, 2010, 12:34:22 AM by DeathToTheWorld »

Logged

100. Like a bee one should extract from each of the virtues what is most profitable. In this way, by taking a small amount from all of them, one builds up from the practice of the virtues a great honeycomb overflowing with the soul-delighting honey of wisdom.

It is interesting, but their ritual is dead, without being in the Church, it really doesn't mean anything. It is cool to see how things use to be, but it's simply sad to see that these people worship their rites and rituals more than God himself... Their churches seem to simply be a "Christian" reconstruction of the pharisaic way...

Again, the Old Believers just brought condemnation onto themselves when they refused to be a part of the church...

How do know their rituals are dead? Many are very faithful to God and they saw the reforms as not only against Orthodox but against Christ as well. Its easy to see why they would break away from the Church when the Church is ordering them to be burned at the steak for not accepting reforms. That is why many of them are not in communion; it is a lack of trust. The scars are deep. I don't see the reason in judging them the way you are by saying they have no real faith. As I've said though, not all Old Believers are out of the Church. Those who have joined the MP or ROCOR still practice the old faith with the older liturgy and doing the two fingers sign of the Cross. I cannot blame them for breaking communion with the Church really because of the ways the reforms were implemented.

This guy is an Old Believer,here is the information that he has gathered about the siege of the monastery:

I used to visit the site alot, but just as with all other conspiracy websites (I used to be obsessed with conspiracy theories), it is just a huge waste of my time and my thinking power. It just draws you in, like a fish who has caught a hook. I spoke with Met Jonah a few months ago about those kinds of websites and he said that it was like pornography that people are advertizing. I understand now what he meant.

I don't altogether condemn reading the things on that sight, just be warned.

It has truth, as well as exaggerations.

The guy that runs that website occasionally comes on here and expresses his views...

It is interesting, but their ritual is dead, without being in the Church, it really doesn't mean anything. It is cool to see how things use to be, but it's simply sad to see that these people worship their rites and rituals more than God himself... Their churches seem to simply be a "Christian" reconstruction of the pharisaic way...

Again, the Old Believers just brought condemnation onto themselves when they refused to be a part of the church...

How do know their rituals are dead? Many are very faithful to God and they saw the reforms as not only against Orthodox but against Christ as well. Its easy to see why they would break away from the Church when the Church is ordering them to be burned at the steak for not accepting reforms. That is why many of them are not in communion; it is a lack of trust. The scars are deep. I don't see the reason in judging them the way you are by saying they have no real faith. As I've said though, not all Old Believers are out of the Church. Those who have joined the MP or ROCOR still practice the old faith with the older liturgy and doing the two fingers sign of the Cross. I cannot blame them for breaking communion with the Church really because of the ways the reforms were implemented.

I don't think you really understand, those that stayed in schism are not in the church... Therefore their "eucharist" is not valid, so they aren't truly receiving the body and blood of Christ... As well as the fact that they do not have the Holy Spirit working within their souls (though he can definitely work with them, though outside of their souls)...

Just because a group looks "alright" and may practice honestly and genuinely, doesn't make them right or okay. They are completely outside of the Orthodox tradition... Nothing about that is okay or alright.

But I read online that Pope Innocent III changed the whole practice of the sign of the cross.

I also read that when they changed the Old Rite in Russia, many Monks and Laity of the Old Believers were martyred because they did not want to change to the new rite. This was is 1666-1667 when they changed to the new-rite. The Year of the antichrist?

But the Old Believers make the sign of the cross in the original way it was made to be done. The Pantocrator Icon from Sinai in the 6th Century confirms this, as do other icons.

I don't know why this is perpetuated.

He is not making the Sign of the Cross

nor the Old Ritualist sign of the Crossbut blessing in His name IC XC

« Last Edit: May 02, 2010, 04:31:10 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Same here. One would thing that the iconographer would know the difference. Jesus is either making a very sloppy ICXC, or an Old Believers sign of the cross.

Or the blessing gesture and the Sign of the Cross used to be the same thing, or the gesture was modified and perfected over time (BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS ONCE DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS OMG!?!?!?!?), or any other variety of options.

Some patristics evidence that the Sign started as being simply traced over the forehead by the thumb in a "plus" shape, much like how unction is still applied. I think it's safe to say that rituals change, and sometimes that's just fine.

100. Like a bee one should extract from each of the virtues what is most profitable. In this way, by taking a small amount from all of them, one builds up from the practice of the virtues a great honeycomb overflowing with the soul-delighting honey of wisdom.

As well as the fact that they do not have the Holy Spirit working within their souls . . .

Wow! I doubt that you know who or not the Holy Spirit chooses to work within. That is a level of arrogance that far surpasses anything the Old Believers could have done.

Actually no, that is what chrismation does, you are given the gift & seal of the Holy Spirit. Unless you have been chrismated in the Orthodox Church, the Holy Spirit does not actually dwell within you. Instead, he still may be present, but it working outside of your soul.

So should we just all repent of our devilish ways and return to the old way? Also, it doesn't really matter what the old way used to be, it still would not make the Pomorsky more right than the EO Church... As mentioned earlier, if we wanted to make it the way the earliest Christians did, we would be tracing it on our foreheads.

Actually no, that is what chrismation does, you are given the gift & seal of the Holy Spirit. Unless you have been chrismated in the Orthodox Church, the Holy Spirit does not actually dwell within you. Instead, he still may be present, but it working outside of your soul.

So should we just all repent of our devilish ways and return to the old way? Also, it doesn't really matter what the old way used to be, it still would not make the Pomorsky more right than the EO Church... As mentioned earlier, if we wanted to make it the way the earliest Christians did, we would be tracing it on our foreheads.

I wish that I could believe the first paragraph. Given that so many who are Chrismated have fallen so far into ecumenism and modernism, I find it easy to believe that the Holy Spirit works more in some of the heterodox and heathen than he does those that have been Chrismated. They are at least seeking the Truth and not rejecting it.

As to the second, I don't really think it makes any difference how you do it. Just don't burn someone else at the stake for doing it differently. I prefer the old way. I really don't care how anyone else does it since their practice has no bearing on my salvation.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

He works differently in them, as I said, in the heterodox, he is working outside of their souls, whereas with the Orthodox, he is able to work within the soul...

Again, you are assuming I disagree with the Old Rite, which I don't disagree with... I disagree with the Pomorsky and believe they are schismatics and borderline (if not outright) heretics. Their faith is pretty much Phariseeism and is in no way Orthodox.

Just because a few in the church make some mistakes (such as killing someone for their faith) doesn't mean you have the right to put that on the whole church. My Priest once quoted his spiritual father who said something like... "You must never denegrate the Church. Men may make her to look like a prostitute (substituted for another word), but remember that she is the bride of Christ."

Again, just because some men "in the Church" burned the Old Believers at the stake doesn't mean you can pin that on the rest of us in the Church. That is their sin alone and does not fall with the rest of us.

Also, from the reading I've done, it was mostly the Russian Empire that persecuted the Old Believers and not entirely the Church.

He works differently in them, as I said, in the heterodox, he is working outside of their souls, whereas with the Orthodox, he is able to work within the soul...

Again, you are assuming I disagree with the Old Rite, which I don't disagree with... I disagree with the Pomorsky and believe they are schismatics and borderline (if not outright) heretics. Their faith is pretty much Phariseeism and is in no way Orthodox.

Just because a few in the church make some mistakes (such as killing someone for their faith) doesn't mean you have the right to put that on the whole church. My Priest once quoted his spiritual father who said something like... "You must never denegrate the Church. Men may make her to look like a prostitute (substituted for another word), but remember that she is the bride of Christ."

Again, just because some men "in the Church" burned the Old Believers at the stake doesn't mean you can pin that on the rest of us in the Church. That is their sin alone and does not fall with the rest of us.

Also, from the reading I've done, it was mostly the Russian Empire that persecuted the Old Believers and not entirely the Church.

100. Like a bee one should extract from each of the virtues what is most profitable. In this way, by taking a small amount from all of them, one builds up from the practice of the virtues a great honeycomb overflowing with the soul-delighting honey of wisdom.

He works differently in them, as I said, in the heterodox, he is working outside of their souls, whereas with the Orthodox, he is able to work within the soul...

Again, you are assuming I disagree with the Old Rite, which I don't disagree with... I disagree with the Pomorsky and believe they are schismatics and borderline (if not outright) heretics. Their faith is pretty much Phariseeism and is in no way Orthodox.

Just because a few in the church make some mistakes (such as killing someone for their faith) doesn't mean you have the right to put that on the whole church. My Priest once quoted his spiritual father who said something like... "You must never denegrate the Church. Men may make her to look like a prostitute (substituted for another word), but remember that she is the bride of Christ."

Again, just because some men "in the Church" burned the Old Believers at the stake doesn't mean you can pin that on the rest of us in the Church. That is their sin alone and does not fall with the rest of us.

Also, from the reading I've done, it was mostly the Russian Empire that persecuted the Old Believers and not entirely the Church.

No, can't hang that on the Jews: the Orthodox did that all by themselves.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

He works differently in them, as I said, in the heterodox, he is working outside of their souls, whereas with the Orthodox, he is able to work within the soul...

Again, you are assuming I disagree with the Old Rite, which I don't disagree with... I disagree with the Pomorsky and believe they are schismatics and borderline (if not outright) heretics. Their faith is pretty much Phariseeism and is in no way Orthodox.

Just because a few in the church make some mistakes (such as killing someone for their faith) doesn't mean you have the right to put that on the whole church. My Priest once quoted his spiritual father who said something like... "You must never denegrate the Church. Men may make her to look like a prostitute (substituted for another word), but remember that she is the bride of Christ."

Again, just because some men "in the Church" burned the Old Believers at the stake doesn't mean you can pin that on the rest of us in the Church. That is their sin alone and does not fall with the rest of us.

Also, from the reading I've done, it was mostly the Russian Empire that persecuted the Old Believers and not entirely the Church.

No, can't hang that on the Jews: the Orthodox did that all by themselves.

The Devil will do anything to modernize the church. He accomplished this back in 1666, but the church is not destroyed, it shall never be destroyed.

Those men whom the devil was able to kill are Eternally glorified by God.

Christ said to Peter that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

Logged

100. Like a bee one should extract from each of the virtues what is most profitable. In this way, by taking a small amount from all of them, one builds up from the practice of the virtues a great honeycomb overflowing with the soul-delighting honey of wisdom.

He works differently in them, as I said, in the heterodox, he is working outside of their souls, whereas with the Orthodox, he is able to work within the soul...

Again, you are assuming I disagree with the Old Rite, which I don't disagree with... I disagree with the Pomorsky and believe they are schismatics and borderline (if not outright) heretics. Their faith is pretty much Phariseeism and is in no way Orthodox.

Just because a few in the church make some mistakes (such as killing someone for their faith) doesn't mean you have the right to put that on the whole church. My Priest once quoted his spiritual father who said something like... "You must never denegrate the Church. Men may make her to look like a prostitute (substituted for another word), but remember that she is the bride of Christ."

Again, just because some men "in the Church" burned the Old Believers at the stake doesn't mean you can pin that on the rest of us in the Church. That is their sin alone and does not fall with the rest of us.

Also, from the reading I've done, it was mostly the Russian Empire that persecuted the Old Believers and not entirely the Church.

No, can't hang that on the Jews: the Orthodox did that all by themselves.

The Devil will do anything to modernize the church. He accomplished this back in 1666, but the church is not destroyed, it shall never be destroyed.

Those men whom the devil was able to kill are Eternally glorified by God.

Christ said to Peter that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

Yet many of the reforms from 1666 are still with us today, are those parts of the reforms still bad? Also, What exactly is your perspective of the reforms? Because the Old Believers (Specifically the Pomorsky) seem to believe it was a "Great Apostasy" and that they alone retained the truth and that they are the only remaining true Orthodox, and that they alone worship the true way.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with the Old Rite, especially since it was approved by the MP. However, as I've said many times before, my beef is NOT with the Old Believers or the Old Rite, but rather the Old Believers outside of the Church, such as those known as the Pomorsky.

Additionally, an Orthodox Church can "reform", but it's up to all the members of that Church to approve of the reforms, and I'd be willing to say that if other Orthodox Churches differ and disagree about the reform, then it's not and official Church decision. So become schismatics over "reforms" was stupid and pointless, especially considering that in entering schism, they cut themselves off from not just the Moscow Patriarchate & the Russian Church, but also the Antiochian Churches, the Greek Orthodox Churches, the Alexandrian Church, the Jerusalem Church, and all other Orthodox Churches out there.

What I do agree with Devin on is that many traditionalists (not just the Old Believers), in an attempt to avoid modernisation or other changes (many of which are fairly trivial) are willing to accept an ecclesiology that is anything but Orthodox.

What I do agree with Devin on is that many traditionalists (not just the Old Believers), in an attempt to avoid modernisation or other changes (many of which are fairly trivial) are willing to accept an ecclesiology that is anything but Orthodox.

What type of ecclesiology would that be? For example, are you thinking of the "light switch" ecclesiology, where someone is Orthodox and then--poof!--in the blink of an eye millions become heretics?

What type of ecclesiology would that be? For example, are you thinking of the "light switch" ecclesiology, where someone is Orthodox and then--poof!--in the blink of an eye millions become heretics?

In the case of the priestless Old Believers, the rejection of relatively minor liturgical reforms led to them being without a priesthood, without Eucharist, etc. They rejected the three-fingered sign of the Cross and in turn adopted a seemingly Protestant understanding of the Church.

In the case of some old calendarist splinter groups, declaring all outside their group graceless schismatics and heretics, and then receiving ordinations from them to ensure their continuation. Would that not constitute an ecumenism far worse than anyone in 'world orthodoxy' has been guilty of? Self-contradictory stuff like that.

In the case of some old calendarist splinter groups, declaring all outside their group graceless schismatics and heretics, and then receiving ordinations from them to ensure their continuation. Would that not constitute an ecumenism far worse than anyone in 'world orthodoxy' has been guilty of? Self-contradictory stuff like that.

It would, but I'm not sure who is guilty of that? I know some received their bishops from ROCOR, but they thought ROCOR was Orthodox at the time, and were even in communion with them for a while.

It would, but I'm not sure who is guilty of that? I know some received their bishops from ROCOR, but they thought ROCOR was Orthodox at the time, and were even in communion with them for a while.

I can cite the example of a parish a few hours from here, headed by a reader most of the time. They have on occasions received priests from other churches (churches they uncompromisingly lable heretical), until said reader decided they weren't Orthodox enough and sent them on their way. Of course, everyone in this parish is clearly nuts, but they're an example of how people can become so fanatical about one thing that they happily ignore other far more important things.

It would, but I'm not sure who is guilty of that? I know some received their bishops from ROCOR, but they thought ROCOR was Orthodox at the time, and were even in communion with them for a while.

I can cite the example of a parish a few hours from here, headed by a reader most of the time. They have on occasions received priests from other churches (churches they uncompromisingly lable heretical), until said reader decided they weren't Orthodox enough and sent them on their way. Of course, everyone in this parish is clearly nuts, but they're an example of how people can become so fanatical about one thing that they happily ignore other far more important things.

Such a thing is not relegated to Old Believers. I know of parishes where priests have come home from errands to find their bags packed and the locks changed on the rectory door because they were not ethnic enough for their congregation. Even the bishop knew about this before the priest did.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Such a thing is not relegated to Old Believers. I know of parishes where priests have come home from errands to find their bags packed and the locks changed on the rectory door because they were not ethnic enough for their congregation. Even the bishop knew about this before the priest did.

My point was that they accepted clergy from churches they consider heretical and schismatic, an act of ecumenism far more serious than anything commited by the bishops they have walled themselves off from. Kicking a priest out of a parish happens often (lamentably,it is usually because the priest is too orthodox for the congregants), but is not a doctrinal issue, it just means the congregants need a visit from Chuck Norris to sort them out.

It would, but I'm not sure who is guilty of that? I know some received their bishops from ROCOR, but they thought ROCOR was Orthodox at the time, and were even in communion with them for a while.

I can cite the example of a parish a few hours from here, headed by a reader most of the time. They have on occasions received priests from other churches (churches they uncompromisingly lable heretical), until said reader decided they weren't Orthodox enough and sent them on their way. Of course, everyone in this parish is clearly nuts, but they're an example of how people can become so fanatical about one thing that they happily ignore other far more important things.

Such a thing is not relegated to Old Believers. I know of parishes where priests have come home from errands to find their bags packed and the locks changed on the rectory door because they were not ethnic enough for their congregation. Even the bishop knew about this before the priest did.

Thats horrible, why wasn't that Church closed or the people temporarily excommunicated? Shame on the Bishop for not acting to punish them...

It would, but I'm not sure who is guilty of that? I know some received their bishops from ROCOR, but they thought ROCOR was Orthodox at the time, and were even in communion with them for a while.

I can cite the example of a parish a few hours from here, headed by a reader most of the time. They have on occasions received priests from other churches (churches they uncompromisingly lable heretical), until said reader decided they weren't Orthodox enough and sent them on their way. Of course, everyone in this parish is clearly nuts, but they're an example of how people can become so fanatical about one thing that they happily ignore other far more important things.

Such a thing is not relegated to Old Believers. I know of parishes where priests have come home from errands to find their bags packed and the locks changed on the rectory door because they were not ethnic enough for their congregation. Even the bishop knew about this before the priest did.

Thats horrible, why wasn't that Church closed or the people temporarily excommunicated? Shame on the Bishop for not acting to punish them...

I can't answer that, as I do not know. All I know is that this particular priest was, by all accounts, shamefully treated.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

It would, but I'm not sure who is guilty of that? I know some received their bishops from ROCOR, but they thought ROCOR was Orthodox at the time, and were even in communion with them for a while.

I can cite the example of a parish a few hours from here, headed by a reader most of the time. They have on occasions received priests from other churches (churches they uncompromisingly lable heretical), until said reader decided they weren't Orthodox enough and sent them on their way. Of course, everyone in this parish is clearly nuts, but they're an example of how people can become so fanatical about one thing that they happily ignore other far more important things.

Such a thing is not relegated to Old Believers. I know of parishes where priests have come home from errands to find their bags packed and the locks changed on the rectory door because they were not ethnic enough for their congregation. Even the bishop knew about this before the priest did.

Thats horrible, why wasn't that Church closed or the people temporarily excommunicated? Shame on the Bishop for not acting to punish them...

I can't answer that, as I do not know. All I know is that this particular priest was, by all accounts, shamefully treated.

I really do not see what people find attractive about the Old Believers, everything screams cult and pharisee... Honestly I'm sick about hearing about them. Many of the Old Believers aren't even Orthodox and so I don't see why there is any interest in them. They are not right and never have been right, they committed heresy and have been schismatics ever since they split from the Church. They aren't any different from any other non-Orthodox groups out there.Again, I do not really see why anyone has an interest in these people, I've only found them to be very pharisaic and self-righteous...

Also, when I refer to the Old Believers, I'm referring to those who remained in schism, not those who were reunited to the MP.

Well, that is your opinion, and you know what they say about opinions. Look at the history. I suppose real Orthodox people burn people at the stake and put them in cold water until they die. If someone did to my family what the "Orthodox Church" did to the Old Believers, I would never have anything to do with "Orthodoxy" again. As to heresy, I have found nothing at all heretical regarding their teachings. I find them far preferable to the modernist drivel that I have seen coming out of some of the current seminaries. I have really had to compromise a lot of my beliefs to become part of "mainstream" Orthodoxy. Often I wonder if that is right to do.

Punch,

You sort of remind me of General George Patton of the U.S. Third Army (of WWII fame), who also felt an affinity to days of old. In the movie "Patton," one scene has him looking over an ancient battle field near Carthage and describing the action, as if it is unfolding right before his eyes. When his aide remarks that his is like an eye-witness blow-by-blow account, General Patton replies" "But, I was there!"

I said "I have really had to compromise a lot of my beliefs to become part of "mainstream" Orthodoxy. Often I wonder if that is right to do." General Patton was also an odd fit, but he carried on because the core elements of his life were shared by the much more mainstream US Army of his time. I hope and pray that you are able to separate the essentials from the not-so-essential beliefs (and opinions) so that you can be in peace and grow in the Lord, instead of growing in frustration and anger. Forgive me if I sound condescending; I am attempting to share from personal experience--certainly not from any position of superiority.

To go back to the OP, I would suppose a good way to find out when the sign of the Cross is made in liturgy (when it is supposed to be made, if such a thing is so regulated), would be to contact the church in Erie. The Jordanville Prayerbook, IIRC, has a little section on when to make the Cross. It may be quite the same as the Old Rite.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

I really do not see what people find attractive about the Old Believers, everything screams cult and pharisee... Honestly I'm sick about hearing about them. Many of the Old Believers aren't even Orthodox and so I don't see why there is any interest in them. They are not right and never have been right, they committed heresy and have been schismatics ever since they split from the Church. They aren't any different from any other non-Orthodox groups out there.Again, I do not really see why anyone has an interest in these people, I've only found them to be very pharisaic and self-righteous...

Also, when I refer to the Old Believers, I'm referring to those who remained in schism, not those who were reunited to the MP.

Well, that is your opinion, and you know what they say about opinions. Look at the history. I suppose real Orthodox people burn people at the stake and put them in cold water until they die. If someone did to my family what the "Orthodox Church" did to the Old Believers, I would never have anything to do with "Orthodoxy" again. As to heresy, I have found nothing at all heretical regarding their teachings. I find them far preferable to the modernist drivel that I have seen coming out of some of the current seminaries. I have really had to compromise a lot of my beliefs to become part of "mainstream" Orthodoxy. Often I wonder if that is right to do.

Punch,

You sort of remind me of General George Patton of the U.S. Third Army (of WWII fame), who also felt an affinity to days of old. In the movie "Patton," one scene has him looking over an ancient battle field near Carthage and describing the action, as if it is unfolding right before his eyes. When his aide remarks that his is like an eye-witness blow-by-blow account, General Patton replies" "But, I was there!"

I said "I have really had to compromise a lot of my beliefs to become part of "mainstream" Orthodoxy. Often I wonder if that is right to do." General Patton was also an odd fit, but he carried on because the core elements of his life were shared by the much more mainstream US Army of his time. I hope and pray that you are able to separate the essentials from the not-so-essential beliefs (and opinions) so that you can be in peace and grow in the Lord, instead of growing in frustration and anger. Forgive me if I sound condescending; I am attempting to share from personal experience--certainly not from any position of superiority.

My friend, you have no need for me to forgive you. I thank you for your prayers. Given that you do not know me, but have chosen this story is indication enough that it is not just from you, but that you were moved to write it. I will take your words very seriously. Sometimes we become so immersed in something that is almost seems that we were there. If we partake of the Body of Christ, are we not part of all of those that are part of that Body throughout history? Does our conscience become part of a collective conscience? I don't know, nor do I dwell on it. But your words have brought me comfort and peace, and again I thank you.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

But I read online that Pope Innocent III changed the whole practice of the sign of the cross.

I also read that when they changed the Old Rite in Russia, many Monks and Laity of the Old Believers were martyred because they did not want to change to the new rite. This was is 1666-1667 when they changed to the new-rite. The Year of the antichrist?

But the Old Believers make the sign of the cross in the original way it was made to be done. The Pantocrator Icon from Sinai in the 6th Century confirms this, as do other icons.

I don't know why this is perpetuated.

He is not making the Sign of the Cross

nor the Old Ritualist sign of the Crossbut blessing in His name IC XC

I think you may need to look again, ialmisry. That icon is clearly depicting Christ giving the traditional two-fingered blessing and not the later ICXC Christogram. There are more examples here.

In Christ,Michael

Logged

'If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved.' - St John (Kovalevsky) of Saint-Denis

I have really had to compromise a lot of my beliefs to become part of "mainstream" Orthodoxy. Often I wonder if that is right to do.

As do I, Punch. I certainly worry at some of the things taught and done by those with whom we have entered into the fullness of communion. Yet I have seen the other side of this as well and its dangers. I think all we in the Church Abroad can do is pray for mercy that we, along with others, may form part of the conscience of the Church.

In Christ,Michael

Logged

'If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved.' - St John (Kovalevsky) of Saint-Denis

Years ago when I first came to Orthodoxy I was a very hard-headed young man who took a reactionary opposing view of the Old Believers and Old Rite similar to 88Devin12 and re-hashed all the old arguments against them referring to them as simply superstitious and obstinate heretics. I had not known anything really about the Raskol or the Old Rite when I said this and I was wrong and am ashamed of having said what I did. After years of growth in Orthodoxy and studying I can say that I do think some Old Believers are and were superstitious-obstinate heretics but for the most part that was not the case nor is it the case now. There are no ways of getting around this: the Russian Tsars and the Church officials who persecuted and anathematized the Old Rite and Old Believers were wrong! The MP and ROCOR have admitted this, though I don't know how they think we should view Avvakum and Pavel of Kolomna, and even apologized for the actions taken in the past. Look at the horrible blasphemy of what was done to St.Anna of Kashin! As for the Old Rite sign of the Cross and blessing I would say that I've seen this in old icons and mosaics many more times than the link shows. In my own Serbian parish Church there is a large reproduction of a medieval fresco of St.Sava blessing in this way.Why should this bother anyone who is not Old Rite? Both ways of blessing are Orthodox.

For this is the Sign of the Passion, displayed and made manifest against the devil, provided that you do it with faith, not to be seen by men, but by presenting it with skill like a shield. Because the Adversary, when he sees the strength of the heart and when he sees the inner man which is animated by the Word show, formed on the exterior, the interior image of the Word, he is made to flee by the Spirit which is in you. 3This is symbolized by the Paschal lamb which was sacrificed, the blood of which Moses sprinkled on the threshold, and smeared on the doorposts. He told us of the faith which is now in us, which was given to us through the perfect Lamb.-St.Hippolytus (215 AD) The Apostolic Tradition

Then we should also marvel how demons and various diseases are dispelled by the sign of the precious and life-giving Cross, which all can make without cost or effort. Who can number the panegyrics composed in its honour? The holy fathers have handed down to us the inner significance of this sign, so that we can refute heretics and unbelievers. The two fingers and single hand with which it is made represent the Lord Isus Christ crucified, and He is thereby acknowledged to exist in two natures and one hypostasis or person.The use of the right hand betokens His infinite power and the fact that He sits at the right hand of the Father. That the sign begins with a downward movement from above signifies His descent to us from heaven. Again, the movement of the hand from the right side to the left drives away our enemies and declares that by His invincible power the Lord overcame the devil, who is on the left side, dark and lacking strength. - St.Peter of Damascus (12th Century) The Philokalia: The Complete Text, (Volume Three), translated and edited by G.E.H Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware,1984 Faber and Faber London

I added the above quotes to show first one of the earliest and clearest explanations of the Sign of the Cross being a Seal of the Blood of the Lamb of God, our Lord Christ. The second quote is a very explicit explanation of how to make the Sign of the Cross with two fingers as the norm.To delve deeper into this and respond to previous posts. This reform was not minor in the eyes of Russians in 1667 when the two finger sign of the cross was anathematized or in 1653 when it was first pushed on the public by Patriarch Nikon. You have to understand that the old Slavic Nomocanon specifically repeats an older anathema that whoever does not cross himself with two fingers let him be anathema http://www.staropomor.ru/Ustav%282%29/kormchaya/k3.pdf (pg. 13, anathema 23). The Stoglav also repeated this. For the pious Russians the Nikonian Reform of the Sign of the Cross was blasphemy. It completely abolished the doctrine related to the Sign of the Cross being a Seal in the Blood of the Passion of our Lord represented by the two fingers with which we make the Seal on our bodies. It replaced this with a new Sign of the Cross and doctrine in which we seal ourselves with the Trinity and placed the Trinity on the Cross! Not only did this seem blasphemous and heretical it made no sense! The traditional two finger Sign/Seal confessed the Trinity with the remaining fingers already so why was it necessary to change it even if you believe the Trinity should be confessed when making the Sign of the Cross? The only reason was to be like the Greeks as they were in the 17th Century. The two fingered Sign of the Cross was the norm for all Orthodox until the 16th century when the three fingered form first written about by Pope Innocent III gradually made inroads into Orthodoxy through the influence of the Latins in the Thirteenth Century and later in the 16th Century through Greeks living in places that were under the control of the Venetian Republic (Venice, obviously, but also Nafplion in the heart of Greece). There are many, many books on this subject written in Russian but sadly in the English speaking world there are still people fooled by lies that began shortly after the Nikonian Reforms. My own belief is that Old Orthodox were just in fightiing what was clearly wrong and even if you view them as now being in schism it is hard to understand how any pious and erudite Russian could have not objected and fought against reforms that clearly seemed contradict the canons of the Church which are produced through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.Personally I think the Orthodox way of life led by many Old Believers, I am thinking primarily of the Popovsti, is proof that adherence to the old ways has served to protect and maintain the Truth of the Orthodox Faith.Lex Orandi Lex Credendi!

I'm wondering, are those reforms considered Orthodox/Ecumenical and are they accepted today?

I'm not sure just what you're asking here. The reforms of the Moscow Council of 1666 are Orthodox and are still accepted today. Moreover, the issue of the sign of the Cross and the other changes was largely confined (as an actual issue, not a gradual change) to the Russian Church. At that time, the Russian Church was brought into conformity with the rest of the Orthodox Church as regards various practices. However, in the Russian Church, there is no longer an issue with the old books and old customs, as there has been a blessing to serve according to the old books since the 19th century.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

The two fingered Sign of the Cross was the norm for all Orthodox until the 16th century when the three fingered form first written about by Pope Innocent III gradually made inroads into Orthodoxy...

I beg to differ. It was not the norm. We know that the Orthodox of England were using three fingers 600 years before the Nikonian reforms and before the Crusades.

There is an interesting sermon of Abbot Aelfric of Abingdon which he gave around the year 1000 in which he states, "Though a man wave wonderfully with his hand, yet it is not the sign of the Cross: With three fingers you shall sign yourself." (Sermon for Sept. 14)

I'm wondering, are those reforms considered Orthodox/Ecumenical and are they accepted today?

I'm not sure just what you're asking here. The reforms of the Moscow Council of 1666 are Orthodox and are still accepted today. Moreover, the issue of the sign of the Cross and the other changes was largely confined (as an actual issue, not a gradual change) to the Russian Church. At that time, the Russian Church was brought into conformity with the rest of the Orthodox Church as regards various practices. However, in the Russian Church, there is no longer an issue with the old books and old customs, as there has been a blessing to serve according to the old books since the 19th century.

Well let me qualify that by stating that the Anathemas against the Old Rite, along with Oaths against the Old Rite, later imposed on Nikonian priests were lifted in 1971 and 1974 by the MP and ROCOR respectively. To lift an anathema means that it was never valid at all! Of course if you are Popovsti Old Orthodox (an Old Believer) you believe that the Nikonian Reforms are heretical and that the Old Believers remained faithful to Orthodoxy.Below is yet another example of the antiquity of the Two Fingered Seal/Blessing of the Cross.These two are of the same icon from the Catacombs of Saints Marcellinus and Peter

Because The Ikona Of St.Sava Shows Him Holding His Fingers That way , Doesn't mean he crossed himself with two fingers..For us serbs He is Our Holy Father ...If it was true which its not ,we would be using two fingers Even Now ...Also the Ancient Assyrian church of the East, uses the Three Fingers and right to left like we Eastern Orthodox do ,they got that from us ,so ours is the ancient and athentic way of crossing onesself.....

Thing is though, Orthodoxy does evolve, it isn't static. While our faith stays the same, some of our traditions change. We no longer cross ourselves with our thumbs on our foreheads, we no longer worship in house churches (for the most part), etc...

So really, just because something is an ancient practice, doesn't mean we should revert to it. (this isn't just for crossing yourself though) While nothing is wrong with those practices, we have moved on, and because we are one Church, we need to be in conformity (for the most part).

If someone wants to cross themselves with two fingers, or with their thumb on their forehead, I don't see a problem with it if approved by the Priest and/or the Bishop. But as a whole, Orthodoxy has moved on and evolved. There are canonical Old Believers, and I believe that shows that such practices are not heterodox or wrong, it's just that we've moved on.

I see a problem with two fingers ..I Rather confess the Complete God Head when crossing Myself ..... PlusI was taught when we cross ourselfs with three fingers we confess the The Most Holy Trinity, plus the two Fingers that rest in the palm confess the Humanity and Divinity of Christ.. So Im Curious ,How can anything else evolve that would be considered a greater Confession than that.... Holy Eastern Orthodoxy Got it Right....

I see a problem with two fingers ..I Rather confess the Complete God Head when crossing Myself ..... PlusI was taught when we cross ourselfs with three fingers we confess the The Most Holy Trinity, plus the two Fingers that rest in the palm confess the Humanity and Divinity of Christ.. So Im Curious ,How can anything else evolve that would be considered a greater Confession than that.... Holy Eastern Orthodoxy Got it Right....

Thing is, we know that historically Christians first crossed themselves with their thumb, and (from what I understand) it went to two fingers, then to three.East crossed themselves right to left and West cross themselves from left to right, both were based on correct theology/symbolism. (the difference existed well before the schism)

So why do we cross ourselves with three fingers from right to left? This is what the Church has taught us, and is the commonly accepted way of doing it in Orthodoxy.

The Sign of the Cross has grown and evolved just as the Liturgy has grown and evolved over time. (as well as many of our traditions)

I never heard or read any orthodox writings about crossing oneself in the begining with the thumb or the two fingers ..iv heard about the catholics doing it,,the thumb and thats about it and they still do...

I see a problem with two fingers ..I Rather confess the Complete God Head when crossing Myself ..... PlusI was taught when we cross ourselfs with three fingers we confess the The Most Holy Trinity, plus the two Fingers that rest in the palm confess the Humanity and Divinity of Christ.. So Im Curious ,How can anything else evolve that would be considered a greater Confession than that.... Holy Eastern Orthodoxy Got it Right....

Thing is, we know that historically Christians first crossed themselves with their thumb, and (from what I understand) it went to two fingers, then to three.East crossed themselves right to left and West cross themselves from left to right, both were based on correct theology/symbolism. (the difference existed well before the schism)

So why do we cross ourselves with three fingers from right to left? This is what the Church has taught us, and is the commonly accepted way of doing it in Orthodoxy.

The Sign of the Cross has grown and evolved just as the Liturgy has grown and evolved over time. (as well as many of our traditions)

Catholics sign themselves with the thumb cross on the forehead, lips and heart at the beginning of the Gospel reading. When the priest announces the passage to be read, the congregation responds, "Glory to You, Lord," and then makes the sign that way. At all other times, including the beginning and end of the Mass, Catholics of the Eastern Rite will make the Cross in the same way as the Eastern Orthodox; Catholics of Western origin (such as the Roman Rite) will make the Cross with the pinky and ring fingers folded into the palm, to signify that Christ is fully God and fully Man, and the three other digits pressed closely together (usually side-by-side rather than at the tips), to signify the Holy Trinity. It looks like an EO cross but without your fingertips pressed together.

Tertullian (200)At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign. If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386)Let us, therefore, not be ashamed of the Cross of Christ; but though another hide it, do thou openly seal it upon thy forehead, that the devils may behold the royal sign and flee trembling far away. Make then this sign at eating and drinking, at sitting, at lying down, at rising up, at speaking, at walking: in a word, at every act.

Theodoret (393–457)This is how to bless someone with your hand and make the sign of the cross over them. Hold three fingers, as equals, together, to represent the Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. These are not three gods, but one God in Trinity. The names are separate, but the divinity one. The Father was never incarnate; the Son incarnate, but not created; the Holy Ghost neither incarnate nor created, but issued from the Godhead: three in a single divinity. Divinity is one force and has one honor. They receive on obeisance from all creation, both angels and people. Thus the decree for these three fingers.You should hold the other two fingers slightly bent, not completely straight. This is because these represent the dual nature of Christ, divine and human. God in His divinity, and human in His incarnation, yet perfect in both. The upper finger represents divinity, and the lower humanity; this way salvation goes from the higher finger to the lower. So is the bending of the fingers interpreted, for the worship of Heaven comes down for our salvation. This is how you must cross yourselves and give a blessing, as the holy fathers have commanded.

Pope Innocent III (1198–1216):The sign of the cross is made with three fingers, because the signing is done together with the invocation of the Trinity. ... This is how it is done: from above to below, and from the right to the left, because Christ descended from the heavens to the earth, and from the Jews (right) He passed to the Gentiles (left). Others, however, make the sign of the cross from the left to the right, because from misery (left) we must cross over to glory (right), just as Christ crossed over from death to life, and from Hades to Paradise. [Some priests] do it this way so that they and the people will be signing themselves in the same way. You can easily verify this — picture the priest facing the people for the blessing — when we make the sign of the cross over the people, it is from left to right...

So we can see that the earliest form was in fact crossing yourself on your forehead with your thumb. This later changed during the time of Eutyches in reaction to the Monophysite heresy. This changed occurred sometime between the 2nd/3rd Ecumenical Councils and the Fourth Ecumenical Council. This makes sense when you think about how we cross ourselves, with the pinky and ring fingers symbolizing the dual natures of Christ...

Also, what I found about the "Old Believer" practice, was that was the way Russians crossed themselves, and historically we can see that this was different than the "traditional" way. I don't think that made it wrong, and while the "reforms" were implemented very wrongly, the ancient way seems to be the three-fingered practice.

There is much available online about how one makes the sign of the Cross according to the Old Rite, but very little about when. In current practice, when to make the Sign of the Cross is generally a matter of personal preference. In the Old Rite, however, the Sign of the Cross, like bows and prostrations, is only made when called for in the rubrics of the service. Old Believers therefore tend to make the Sign of the Cross less often than we do - it is not done at every invocation of the Holy Trinity, for example, contrary to modern practice.

John Alden very kindly gave me a link to the Ustav (Typikon) in Slavonic and said the appropriate times for crossing oneself is indicated there. Unfortunately I am not able to read Slavonic, so I was wondering if anyone had access to anything in English or simply knew from personal experience/observation.

Thanks

The Old Orthodox Prayer Book gives indications in every service for where to make the sign of the cross, as well as what kind of bow.

I agree with the others who have praised this book. Given all the interest here, perhaps we'll see a sudden renaissance of pre-Nikonian communities!

I seriously doubt that will happen, especially since we've seen historically that pre-Nikonian Russian communities (at least when it comes to the sign of the cross) actually were not in conformity with other Orthodox communities, and actually differed from the ancient practices.

I seriously doubt that will happen, especially since we've seen historically that pre-Nikonian Russian communities (at least when it comes to the sign of the cross) actually were not in conformity with other Orthodox communities, and actually differed from the ancient practices.

I mentioned this once before, the balkans have 1200 yrs. of christianty three fingers are used to cross ourselfs plus we recieved the rite of constantinople ,, russ/ukranija have only 1000 yrs of christianity and they also recieved the rite of constantinople ,so how did they end up with this, called the old rite and also crossing themselfs with two fingers something had to be distorted in the trasmission of the faith there, to create these old believers and old rites as they call themselves, even before the russian reform back to the the rite of constantinople for the the old rite, it shows that the transmitting the faith did get distorted ,thats why the reforms had to happen.... We in the balkans cross ourselfs three fingers as we recieved from constantinople and its Eastern Rite ........ ....

I seriously doubt that will happen, especially since we've seen historically that pre-Nikonian Russian communities (at least when it comes to the sign of the cross) actually were not in conformity with other Orthodox communities, and actually differed from the ancient practices.

I mentioned this once before, the balkans have 1200 yrs. of christianty three fingers are used to cross ourselfs plus we recieved the rite of constantinople ,, russ/ukranija have only 1000 yrs of christianity and they also recieved the rite of constantinople ,so how did they end up with this, called the old rite and also crossing themselfs with two fingers something had to be distorted in the trasmission of the faith there, to create these old believers and old rites as they call themselves, even before the russian reform back to the the rite of constantinople for the the old rite, it shows that the transmitting the faith did get distorted ,thats why the reforms had to happen.... We in the balkans cross ourselfs three fingers as we recieved from constantinople and its Eastern Rite ........ ....

I wouldn't say it is "wrong" or a "distortion", as even the Western Church before the schism was crossing itself differently than in the East. (and as shown in the quotations above, Christians didn't always cross themselves this way)Is there anything wrong with crossing yourself that way? No. But is it the traditional, ancient Christian way of doing it? No it isn't.

Again, I think it's up to the Priests & Bishops to determine if it is okay for personal, private use or not. If someone has been given permission to do so, then okay. The canonical Old Believers have been given an okay to do it within the Church. But should parishes just switch to this practice? I don't think so, because the way we do it now is the way it's been done for 1600 years.(think of it like the Western Rite, sure it's permitted, but not everyone should or will switch to it)

So your saying the the russian old riters or old believers,in practicing a distortioned version of the rite of constantinople decided to cannonize there version as a authentic one and condemned the Authentic one from constantinople as the distorted one .....And fought against the reforms, to bring them back to the original rite of constantinople ...Interesting....

I seriously doubt that will happen, especially since we've seen historically that pre-Nikonian Russian communities (at least when it comes to the sign of the cross) actually were not in conformity with other Orthodox communities, and actually differed from the ancient practices.

I mentioned this once before, the balkans have 1200 yrs. of christianty three fingers are used to cross ourselfs plus we recieved the rite of constantinople ,, russ/ukranija have only 1000 yrs of christianity and they also recieved the rite of constantinople ,so how did they end up with this, called the old rite and also crossing themselfs with two fingers something had to be distorted in the trasmission of the faith there, to create these old believers and old rites as they call themselves, even before the russian reform back to the the rite of constantinople for the the old rite, it shows that the transmitting the faith did get distorted ,thats why the reforms had to happen.... We in the balkans cross ourselfs three fingers as we recieved from constantinople and its Eastern Rite ........ ....

I wouldn't say it is "wrong" or a "distortion", as even the Western Church before the schism was crossing itself differently than in the East. (and as shown in the quotations above, Christians didn't always cross themselves this way)Is there anything wrong with crossing yourself that way? No. But is it the traditional, ancient Christian way of doing it? No it isn't.

Again, I think it's up to the Priests & Bishops to determine if it is okay for personal, private use or not. If someone has been given permission to do so, then okay. The canonical Old Believers have been given an okay to do it within the Church. But should parishes just switch to this practice? I don't think so, because the way we do it now is the way it's been done for 1600 years.(think of it like the Western Rite, sure it's permitted, but not everyone should or will switch to it)

So your saying the the russian old riters or old believers,in practicing a distortioned version of the rite of constantinople decided to cannonize there version as a authentic one and condemned the Authentic one from constantinople as the distorted one .....And fought against the reforms, to bring them back to the original rite of constantinople ...Interesting....

I seriously doubt that will happen, especially since we've seen historically that pre-Nikonian Russian communities (at least when it comes to the sign of the cross) actually were not in conformity with other Orthodox communities, and actually differed from the ancient practices.

I mentioned this once before, the balkans have 1200 yrs. of christianty three fingers are used to cross ourselfs plus we recieved the rite of constantinople ,, russ/ukranija have only 1000 yrs of christianity and they also recieved the rite of constantinople ,so how did they end up with this, called the old rite and also crossing themselfs with two fingers something had to be distorted in the trasmission of the faith there, to create these old believers and old rites as they call themselves, even before the russian reform back to the the rite of constantinople for the the old rite, it shows that the transmitting the faith did get distorted ,thats why the reforms had to happen.... We in the balkans cross ourselfs three fingers as we recieved from constantinople and its Eastern Rite ........ ....

I wouldn't say it is "wrong" or a "distortion", as even the Western Church before the schism was crossing itself differently than in the East. (and as shown in the quotations above, Christians didn't always cross themselves this way)Is there anything wrong with crossing yourself that way? No. But is it the traditional, ancient Christian way of doing it? No it isn't.

Again, I think it's up to the Priests & Bishops to determine if it is okay for personal, private use or not. If someone has been given permission to do so, then okay. The canonical Old Believers have been given an okay to do it within the Church. But should parishes just switch to this practice? I don't think so, because the way we do it now is the way it's been done for 1600 years.(think of it like the Western Rite, sure it's permitted, but not everyone should or will switch to it)

From what I understand, the Moscow Patriarchate allows Old Believers to practice under their omophor. Not to mention the anathemas of the Nikonian Period were rescinded. If I'm incorrect in this, I'm sorry.

Now... I will also say there is definitely a danger to practicing something outside of traditional Orthodoxy on your own. We should not be "mesmerized" by the Old Believers and awed by their practices. We must remember that the vast majority (if not nearly all) Old Believers are separated from the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church.

I just want to make it clear that I'm not defending the Old Believers. I'm simply pointing out that we can't really demonize them. (if we demonize them, wouldn't we demonize most of Russia prior to the 1600s?)

So your saying the the russian old riters or old believers,in practicing a distortioned version of the rite of constantinople decided to cannonize there version as a authentic one and condemned the Authentic one from constantinople as the distorted one .....And fought against the reforms, to bring them back to the original rite of constantinople ...Interesting....

I seriously doubt that will happen, especially since we've seen historically that pre-Nikonian Russian communities (at least when it comes to the sign of the cross) actually were not in conformity with other Orthodox communities, and actually differed from the ancient practices.

I mentioned this once before, the balkans have 1200 yrs. of christianty three fingers are used to cross ourselfs plus we recieved the rite of constantinople ,, russ/ukranija have only 1000 yrs of christianity and they also recieved the rite of constantinople ,so how did they end up with this, called the old rite and also crossing themselfs with two fingers something had to be distorted in the trasmission of the faith there, to create these old believers and old rites as they call themselves, even before the russian reform back to the the rite of constantinople for the the old rite, it shows that the transmitting the faith did get distorted ,thats why the reforms had to happen.... We in the balkans cross ourselfs three fingers as we recieved from constantinople and its Eastern Rite ........ ....

I wouldn't say it is "wrong" or a "distortion", as even the Western Church before the schism was crossing itself differently than in the East. (and as shown in the quotations above, Christians didn't always cross themselves this way)Is there anything wrong with crossing yourself that way? No. But is it the traditional, ancient Christian way of doing it? No it isn't.

Again, I think it's up to the Priests & Bishops to determine if it is okay for personal, private use or not. If someone has been given permission to do so, then okay. The canonical Old Believers have been given an okay to do it within the Church. But should parishes just switch to this practice? I don't think so, because the way we do it now is the way it's been done for 1600 years.(think of it like the Western Rite, sure it's permitted, but not everyone should or will switch to it)

From what I understand, the Moscow Patriarchate allows Old Believers to practice under their omophor. Not to mention the anathemas of the Nikonian Period were rescinded. If I'm incorrect in this, I'm sorry.

Now... I will also say there is definitely a danger to practicing something outside of traditional Orthodoxy on your own. We should not be "mesmerized" by the Old Believers and awed by their practices. We must remember that the vast majority (if not nearly all) Old Believers are separated from the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church.

I just want to make it clear that I'm not defending the Old Believers. I'm simply pointing out that we can't really demonize them. (if we demonize them, wouldn't we demonize most of Russia prior to the 1600s?)

I am a loyal son of the church, and yet I simply cannot believe God cares whether we make the sign of the cross with two fingers or three. Christ commands us to love one another and says that is how people will know we follow Him, if we love one another. So I make the sign of the cross with three, as I was taught. But let's not get too worked up over it, shall we? The symbolism works in either case. And it's possibly worth remembering that this was only one of the Nikonian reforms.

The two fingered Sign of the Cross was the norm for all Orthodox until the 16th century when the three fingered form first written about by Pope Innocent III gradually made inroads into Orthodoxy...

I beg to differ. It was not the norm. We know that the Orthodox of England were using three fingers 600 years before the Nikonian reforms and before the Crusades.

There is an interesting sermon of Abbot Aelfric of Abingdon which he gave around the year 1000 in which he states, "Though a man wave wonderfully with his hand, yet it is not the sign of the Cross: With three fingers you shall sign yourself." (Sermon for Sept. 14)

What I meant by "the norm" was the majority were making the sign of the Cross in this way and that it was the acknowledged and accepted practice in the Roman Empire and Slavic Orthodox lands. I do not at all mean to discount the Orthodox West and from what iconographic evidence I've found from the West the Two fingered Priestly Blessing was clearly the norm, even after the Great Schism, however I've not yet found enough evidence or references to clearly find when the three fingers representing the Trinity became the normative sign of the Cross in Western Europe.However I admit that the statement you quoted was poorly written and could be interpreted to mean "the majority everywhere."I've reviewed several quotes from the West pertaining to the sign of the Cross and Priestly Blessing however based on these quotes I can only guess when or how the three fingered sign of the Cross came about in the West.

Because The Ikona Of St.Sava Shows Him Holding His Fingers That way , Doesn't mean he crossed himself with two fingers..For us serbs He is Our Holy Father ...If it was true which its not ,we would be using two fingers Even Now ...Also the Ancient Assyrian church of the East, uses the Three Fingers and right to left like we Eastern Orthodox do ,they got that from us ,so ours is the ancient and athentic way of crossing onesself.....

I see a problem with two fingers ..I Rather confess the Complete God Head when crossing Myself ..... PlusI was taught when we cross ourselfs with three fingers we confess the The Most Holy Trinity, plus the two Fingers that rest in the palm confess the Humanity and Divinity of Christ.. So Im Curious ,How can anything else evolve that would be considered a greater Confession than that.... Holy Eastern Orthodoxy Got it Right....

So your saying the the russian old riters or old believers,in practicing a distortioned version of the rite of constantinople decided to cannonize there version as a authentic one and condemned the Authentic one from constantinople as the distorted one .....And fought against the reforms, to bring them back to the original rite of constantinople ...Interesting....

I seriously doubt that will happen, especially since we've seen historically that pre-Nikonian Russian communities (at least when it comes to the sign of the cross) actually were not in conformity with other Orthodox communities, and actually differed from the ancient practices.

I mentioned this once before, the balkans have 1200 yrs. of christianty three fingers are used to cross ourselfs plus we recieved the rite of constantinople ,, russ/ukranija have only 1000 yrs of christianity and they also recieved the rite of constantinople ,so how did they end up with this, called the old rite and also crossing themselfs with two fingers something had to be distorted in the trasmission of the faith there, to create these old believers and old rites as they call themselves, even before the russian reform back to the the rite of constantinople for the the old rite, it shows that the transmitting the faith did get distorted ,thats why the reforms had to happen.... We in the balkans cross ourselfs three fingers as we recieved from constantinople and its Eastern Rite ........ ....

I wouldn't say it is "wrong" or a "distortion", as even the Western Church before the schism was crossing itself differently than in the East. (and as shown in the quotations above, Christians didn't always cross themselves this way)Is there anything wrong with crossing yourself that way? No. But is it the traditional, ancient Christian way of doing it? No it isn't.

Again, I think it's up to the Priests & Bishops to determine if it is okay for personal, private use or not. If someone has been given permission to do so, then okay. The canonical Old Believers have been given an okay to do it within the Church. But should parishes just switch to this practice? I don't think so, because the way we do it now is the way it's been done for 1600 years.(think of it like the Western Rite, sure it's permitted, but not everyone should or will switch to it)

Stashko if you are going to choose to ignore all the evidence, quotes from the HOLY FATHERS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH that you claim to belong to and follow, icons from the first Christians, a fresco painted by Medieval Serbs of St.Sava making the Two-Fingered Priestly Blessing, than why are you in the discussion? If you want to simply ignore all the evidence and want to believe that the way the Serbs are now is the only way it has ever been and that only the Serbs have been faithful to Orthodoxy than why discuss at all? No matter what Church Fathers, Holy Icons, Sacred Canons I place before you defending the verity of the Two Fingered Sign of the Cross and Blessing you are simply going to ignore it.I'm sorry but it is very frustrating to try to argue with someone who refuses to listen or even accept reality.

Tertullian (200)At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign. If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386)Let us, therefore, not be ashamed of the Cross of Christ; but though another hide it, do thou openly seal it upon thy forehead, that the devils may behold the royal sign and flee trembling far away. Make then this sign at eating and drinking, at sitting, at lying down, at rising up, at speaking, at walking: in a word, at every act.

Theodoret (393–457)This is how to bless someone with your hand and make the sign of the cross over them. Hold three fingers, as equals, together, to represent the Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. These are not three gods, but one God in Trinity. The names are separate, but the divinity one. The Father was never incarnate; the Son incarnate, but not created; the Holy Ghost neither incarnate nor created, but issued from the Godhead: three in a single divinity. Divinity is one force and has one honor. They receive on obeisance from all creation, both angels and people. Thus the decree for these three fingers.You should hold the other two fingers slightly bent, not completely straight. This is because these represent the dual nature of Christ, divine and human. God in His divinity, and human in His incarnation, yet perfect in both. The upper finger represents divinity, and the lower humanity; this way salvation goes from the higher finger to the lower. So is the bending of the fingers interpreted, for the worship of Heaven comes down for our salvation. This is how you must cross yourselves and give a blessing, as the holy fathers have commanded.

Pope Innocent III (1198–1216):The sign of the cross is made with three fingers, because the signing is done together with the invocation of the Trinity. ... This is how it is done: from above to below, and from the right to the left, because Christ descended from the heavens to the earth, and from the Jews (right) He passed to the Gentiles (left). Others, however, make the sign of the cross from the left to the right, because from misery (left) we must cross over to glory (right), just as Christ crossed over from death to life, and from Hades to Paradise. [Some priests] do it this way so that they and the people will be signing themselves in the same way. You can easily verify this — picture the priest facing the people for the blessing — when we make the sign of the cross over the people, it is from left to right...

So we can see that the earliest form was in fact crossing yourself on your forehead with your thumb. This later changed during the time of Eutyches in reaction to the Monophysite heresy. This changed occurred sometime between the 2nd/3rd Ecumenical Councils and the Fourth Ecumenical Council. This makes sense when you think about how we cross ourselves, with the pinky and ring fingers symbolizing the dual natures of Christ...

Also, what I found about the "Old Believer" practice, was that was the way Russians crossed themselves, and historically we can see that this was different than the "traditional" way. I don't think that made it wrong, and while the "reforms" were implemented very wrongly, the ancient way seems to be the three-fingered practice.

How was the Old Believer practice not traditional or the normative practice of those who taught them the Orthodox Faith? Blessed Theodoret whom you quoted above teaches the two-fingered (Dvoeperstie) method of making the Sign of the Cross and Priestly Blessing and this quote comes from the 5th Century.The quote I provide from St.Peter Damascene specifically teaches the importance of the two-fingered method of sealing/signing oneself and this quote is from the 12th Century at the latest.The Slavic Nomocanon derived its canon stating that "all who do not cross themselves with two fingers are anathema" from a Council held in Constantinople in 1029 in which the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople was trying win the Jacobite Patriarch John VIII bar Abdoun to Orthodoxy.-Also the way that you view this as development from one-to-two-to-three fingers is too simplistic and ignores any disctinctions between the Priestly Blessing and Sign of the Cross, and the distinction that can still be found amongst traditional Roman Catholics between the small sign of the cross (with the thumb over the forehead, lips, and breast) and larger sign of the Cross (from head, to abdomen, to right shoulder, and last, the left shoulder).

What is key is that the Sign of the Cross and Priestly Blessing are the Sealing with the Blood of the Lamb of God our Lord as is clearly taught by the quote I provide from St.Hippolytus from the third century. The two-fingered priestly blessing is seen in some of the earliest Christian art, after the icon from the catacombs I already provided one can look at the Dogmatic Sarcophagus. What is of key importance in discussing this is that the Three-Fingered Sign of the Cross represents a departure from Orthodoxy as the Trinity replaces Christ on the Cross with the Nikonian Reforms (the Nikonian reforms never mentioned anything about the remaining fingers representing Christ).This contradicted what pious Russians were taught about obeying the Canons as instituted through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, about the Seal of the Cross as confessing faith in and blessing through "Christ-Crucified", and it was forced on the Russian people with violence and blasphemy (consider what was done to St.Anna of Kashin).

Even if the two-fingered sign of the cross/blessing is more ancient, that doesn't mean it's the Orthodox way. As I've pointed out before, there are many ancient practices that are no longer followed in our Church, and we don't revive them. The Church and parts of its tradition evolves, our Faith does not.

You quoted:

Quote

Then we should also marvel how demons and various diseases are dispelled by the sign of the precious and life-giving Cross, which all can make without cost or effort. Who can number the panegyrics composed in its honour? The holy fathers have handed down to us the inner significance of this sign, so that we can refute heretics and unbelievers. The two fingers and single hand with which it is made represent the Lord Isus Christ crucified, and He is thereby acknowledged to exist in two natures and one hypostasis or person.The use of the right hand betokens His infinite power and the fact that He sits at the right hand of the Father. That the sign begins with a downward movement from above signifies His descent to us from heaven. Again, the movement of the hand from the right side to the left drives away our enemies and declares that by His invincible power the Lord overcame the devil, who is on the left side, dark and lacking strength. - St.Peter of Damascus (12th Century) The Philokalia: The Complete Text, (Volume Three), translated and edited by G.E.H Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware,1984 Faber and Faber London

And I'm willing to admit that there were various ways of crossing yourself. And I agree that the 2-fingered is an Orthodox way. (what can possibly be an un-Orthodox way of making the sign of the cross?) What I'm arguing is that the Old Believers are essentially wrong in that they incorrectly reject the other ways, and in fact, have separated themselves from the Church because of their adherence to the Old Rite.

Another example could be iconography. We see very early Christian iconography painted in a slightly different manner from Byzantine iconography, and yet both are Orthodox ways, but it has developed, and the expected & "common" way is to paint it the Byzantine/"Modern" way. (Modern, not meaning realistic or western, but in development)

Look at the Liturgy as well, there were many various Liturgies in the Pre-Byzantine and Byzantine periods, and yet it was eventually standardized in the Orthodox Church to be primarily the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. The other liturgies (such as St. James, St. Basil, Pre-Tridentine Mass, etc...) are all Orthodox Liturgies, but aren't in common use anymore so we can maintain conformity and unity in practice.

So the same has occurred with the sign of the cross. It was once made with the thumb on the forehead, with two-fingers, with three-fingers, and even some Orthodox made it left to right. But now we have conformed to make it with three from right to left. That doesn't make those others invalid or wrong, but it does mean that the expected and common Orthodox way is with three from right to left. What I would argue is that what is definitely wrong is splitting off (even in reaction to persecution, as our Holy Saints never broke communion, even with the hierarchs/clergy/laity persecuted them) because of this conformity/change/evolution.

Only by the Holy Spirit can we say Jesus is Lord. Why not admit both two-fingered and three-fingered believers are faithful followers of the risen Lord? This is the kind of Pharasaical debate Christ railed against. It is by loving one another that people will know we follow Him, not by how many fingers we use to make a gesture that wasn't even used until long after His Ascension.

Only by the Holy Spirit can we say Jesus is Lord. Why not admit both two-fingered and three-fingered believers are faithful followers of the risen Lord? This is the kind of Pharasaical debate Christ railed against. It is by loving one another that people will know we follow Him, not by how many fingers we use to make a gesture that wasn't even used until long after His Ascension.

You should be banned from this forum for daring to make such a sane and logical post.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Only by the Holy Spirit can we say Jesus is Lord. Why not admit both two-fingered and three-fingered believers are faithful followers of the risen Lord? This is the kind of Pharasaical debate Christ railed against. It is by loving one another that people will know we follow Him, not by how many fingers we use to make a gesture that wasn't even used until long after His Ascension.

The difference is that the Old Believers aren't a part of the Church. Now, if there were Orthodox crossing themselves with two-fingers, then there would be no problem. But the problem here is not really the practice of crossing yourself with two or three fingers. The problem here is that the Old Believers are willingly in schism.

Only by the Holy Spirit can we say Jesus is Lord. Why not admit both two-fingered and three-fingered believers are faithful followers of the risen Lord? This is the kind of Pharasaical debate Christ railed against. It is by loving one another that people will know we follow Him, not by how many fingers we use to make a gesture that wasn't even used until long after His Ascension.

You should be banned from this forum for daring to make such a sane and logical post.

Uh-oh. I promise to be more careful. ALL TWO-FINGER CROSS MAKERS ARE GOING TO HELL!! (How's that?)

Only by the Holy Spirit can we say Jesus is Lord. Why not admit both two-fingered and three-fingered believers are faithful followers of the risen Lord? This is the kind of Pharasaical debate Christ railed against. It is by loving one another that people will know we follow Him, not by how many fingers we use to make a gesture that wasn't even used until long after His Ascension.

The difference is that the Old Believers aren't a part of the Church. Now, if there were Orthodox crossing themselves with two-fingers, then there would be no problem. But the problem here is not really the practice of crossing yourself with two or three fingers. The problem here is that the Old Believers are willingly in schism.

I don't see how you can say Old Believers aren't part of the church. At least in the case of ROCOR and MP, this would be inaccurate.

Only by the Holy Spirit can we say Jesus is Lord. Why not admit both two-fingered and three-fingered believers are faithful followers of the risen Lord? This is the kind of Pharasaical debate Christ railed against. It is by loving one another that people will know we follow Him, not by how many fingers we use to make a gesture that wasn't even used until long after His Ascension.

The difference is that the Old Believers aren't a part of the Church. Now, if there were Orthodox crossing themselves with two-fingers, then there would be no problem. But the problem here is not really the practice of crossing yourself with two or three fingers. The problem here is that the Old Believers are willingly in schism.

I don't see how you can say Old Believers aren't part of the church. At least in the case of ROCOR and MP, this would be inaccurate.

Old Believers have been in schism for almost 350 years. ROCOR was only in schism for about 80 years or so. And it wasn't entirely in schism, as it maintained somewhat good relations with canonical churches (sometimes including the MP) and in fact, would sometimes be in communion with the other Churches. The Old Believers are not in communion with any canonical Orthodox jurisdiction, and aren't in good relations with any of them. I do think there is one group of Old Believers that has sought reunion, but they are regarded by the other groups as being heretics. Besides, even if the Old Believers are re-united to the Church some day, that doesn't mean that they were always Orthodox, even during the schism.

I'm not being Pharasaic here. I'm saying that the two-finger sign of the cross is an Orthodox way of crossing yourself, however, what I'm saying is that entering schism over things like that is wrong, especially when the rest of Orthodoxy practices the sign of the cross with three fingers.

Again, I'm not saying that is an incorrect way to make the sign of the cross, what I'm saying is that entering into a schism over such an issue is wrong.

We are taught to be wary of schismatics in addition to heretics. So if we see a group that is willingly in schism, why should we be admiring their practices when there is an obvious reason they are in schism?

(you also must remember that as Orthodox, we don't believe there is no salvation outside of the Church. That isn't for us to judge, so saying a group is schismatic, or heretical is not wrong or Un-Orthodox (if it's true) and it isn't making a "judgement" of their souls. Even if they have Saintly people, that doesn't mean they are Orthodox and it doesn't mean their practices/schism is justified)

Only by the Holy Spirit can we say Jesus is Lord. Why not admit both two-fingered and three-fingered believers are faithful followers of the risen Lord? This is the kind of Pharasaical debate Christ railed against. It is by loving one another that people will know we follow Him, not by how many fingers we use to make a gesture that wasn't even used until long after His Ascension.

The difference is that the Old Believers aren't a part of the Church. Now, if there were Orthodox crossing themselves with two-fingers, then there would be no problem. But the problem here is not really the practice of crossing yourself with two or three fingers. The problem here is that the Old Believers are willingly in schism.

I don't see how you can say Old Believers aren't part of the church. At least in the case of ROCOR and MP, this would be inaccurate.

Old Believers have been in schism for almost 350 years. ROCOR was only in schism for about 80 years or so. And it wasn't entirely in schism, as it maintained somewhat good relations with canonical churches (sometimes including the MP) and in fact, would sometimes be in communion with the other Churches. The Old Believers are not in communion with any canonical Orthodox jurisdiction, and aren't in good relations with any of them. I do think there is one group of Old Believers that has sought reunion, but they are regarded by the other groups as being heretics. Besides, even if the Old Believers are re-united to the Church some day, that doesn't mean that they were always Orthodox, even during the schism.

I'm not being Pharasaic here. I'm saying that the two-finger sign of the cross is an Orthodox way of crossing yourself, however, what I'm saying is that entering schism over things like that is wrong, especially when the rest of Orthodoxy practices the sign of the cross with three fingers.

Again, I'm not saying that is an incorrect way to make the sign of the cross, what I'm saying is that entering into a schism over such an issue is wrong.

We are taught to be wary of schismatics in addition to heretics. So if we see a group that is willingly in schism, why should we be admiring their practices when there is an obvious reason they are in schism?

(you also must remember that as Orthodox, we don't believe there is no salvation outside of the Church. That isn't for us to judge, so saying a group is schismatic, or heretical is not wrong or Un-Orthodox (if it's true) and it isn't making a "judgement" of their souls. Even if they have Saintly people, that doesn't mean they are Orthodox and it doesn't mean their practices/schism is justified)

I understand, but you must surely acknowledge there's at least some debate about who went into schism. Just because the larger part of the church came to a conclusion (that turned out to be wrong, btw) about what the leaders thought was an older practice doesn't mean the smaller part that remained faithful (to what really was the older practice) was schismatic. This discussion can go back and forth forever. The faithful Old Believers vs. the obedient new ones...and so many people killed or exiled and ostracized. Today, some Old Believers are in communion with some whatever one calls the opposite of Old Believers (and don't tell me it's Orthodox, because I definitely regard my Old Ritualist brothers and sisters as at least as Orthodox--and orthodox--as I am), and for the grace of these communities coming together I think we should give praise to Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Only by the Holy Spirit can we say Jesus is Lord. Why not admit both two-fingered and three-fingered believers are faithful followers of the risen Lord? This is the kind of Pharasaical debate Christ railed against. It is by loving one another that people will know we follow Him, not by how many fingers we use to make a gesture that wasn't even used until long after His Ascension.

The difference is that the Old Believers aren't a part of the Church. Now, if there were Orthodox crossing themselves with two-fingers, then there would be no problem. But the problem here is not really the practice of crossing yourself with two or three fingers. The problem here is that the Old Believers are willingly in schism.

I don't see how you can say Old Believers aren't part of the church. At least in the case of ROCOR and MP, this would be inaccurate.

Old Believers have been in schism for almost 350 years. ROCOR was only in schism for about 80 years or so. And it wasn't entirely in schism, as it maintained somewhat good relations with canonical churches (sometimes including the MP) and in fact, would sometimes be in communion with the other Churches. The Old Believers are not in communion with any canonical Orthodox jurisdiction, and aren't in good relations with any of them. I do think there is one group of Old Believers that has sought reunion, but they are regarded by the other groups as being heretics. Besides, even if the Old Believers are re-united to the Church some day, that doesn't mean that they were always Orthodox, even during the schism.

I'm not being Pharasaic here. I'm saying that the two-finger sign of the cross is an Orthodox way of crossing yourself, however, what I'm saying is that entering schism over things like that is wrong, especially when the rest of Orthodoxy practices the sign of the cross with three fingers.

Again, I'm not saying that is an incorrect way to make the sign of the cross, what I'm saying is that entering into a schism over such an issue is wrong.

We are taught to be wary of schismatics in addition to heretics. So if we see a group that is willingly in schism, why should we be admiring their practices when there is an obvious reason they are in schism?

(you also must remember that as Orthodox, we don't believe there is no salvation outside of the Church. That isn't for us to judge, so saying a group is schismatic, or heretical is not wrong or Un-Orthodox (if it's true) and it isn't making a "judgement" of their souls. Even if they have Saintly people, that doesn't mean they are Orthodox and it doesn't mean their practices/schism is justified)

I understand, but you must surely acknowledge there's at least some debate about who went into schism. Just because the larger part of the church came to a conclusion (that turned out to be wrong, btw) about what the leaders thought was an older practice doesn't mean the smaller part that remained faithful (to what really was the older practice) was schismatic. This discussion can go back and forth forever. The faithful Old Believers vs. the obedient new ones...and so many people killed or exiled and ostracized. Today, some Old Believers are in communion with some whatever one calls the opposite of Old Believers (and don't tell me it's Orthodox, because I definitely regard my Old Ritualist brothers and sisters as at least as Orthodox--and orthodox--as I am), and for the grace of these communities coming together I think we should give praise to Our Lord Jesus Christ.

As Eastern Orthodox, there isn't a debate about who went into schism. I'm sorry, but also to call them "Orthodox" would also imply that they should be able to receive communion in our Churches and vice-versa. That is wrong unless the schism is officially healed. Now, to referring to them as "orthodox" is something entirely different.

Either way, I'm done with this discussion, as I don't think it's going to lead anywhere good. (at least for me)

As Eastern Orthodox, there isn't a debate about who went into schism. I'm sorry, but also to call them "Orthodox" would also imply that they should be able to receive communion in our Churches and vice-versa. That is wrong unless the schism is officially healed. Now, to referring to them as "orthodox" is something entirely different.

Either way, I'm done with this discussion, as I don't think it's going to lead anywhere good. (at least for me)

I'm wondering, are those reforms considered Orthodox/Ecumenical and are they accepted today?

I'm not sure just what you're asking here. The reforms of the Moscow Council of 1666 are Orthodox and are still accepted today. Moreover, the issue of the sign of the Cross and the other changes was largely confined (as an actual issue, not a gradual change) to the Russian Church. At that time, the Russian Church was brought into conformity with the rest of the Orthodox Church as regards various practices. However, in the Russian Church, there is no longer an issue with the old books and old customs, as there has been a blessing to serve according to the old books since the 19th century.

Well let me qualify that by stating that the Anathemas against the Old Rite, along with Oaths against the Old Rite, later imposed on Nikonian priests were lifted in 1971 and 1974 by the MP and ROCOR respectively. To lift an anathema means that it was never valid at all! Of course if you are Popovsti Old Orthodox (an Old Believer) you believe that the Nikonian Reforms are heretical and that the Old Believers remained faithful to Orthodoxy.Below is yet another example of the antiquity of the Two Fingered Seal/Blessing of the Cross.These two are of the same icon from the Catacombs of Saints Marcellinus and Peter

Though this is an old post I wanted to add to it a recent photo of yet another earlier christian artifact in which St.Constantine is performing the gesture of Benediction utilizing two-fingers with the thumb, ring, and pinky closed.

However, as I've stated in previous posts, there is much, much more important to validating the Old Orthodox as the keepers of the Apostolic Tradition in fullness than debating the two fingered benediction/sign of the cross, though the theology behind why this is the correct method to exemplify the Christian faith while the three-fingered benediction departs from the traditional meaning is highly important. Numerous more examples can be found in icons dating from before the 16th century as far back as the catacombs. It was this investigation into Iconography that first caught my attention and propelled me to investigate Old Orthodoxy more intently and learn why they considered the Nikonian reforms, and, later, the Petrine reforms which any honest Orthodox scholar must admit were anti-Orthodox, as a departure from Orthodoxy.

To go back to the OP, I would suppose a good way to find out when the sign of the Cross is made in liturgy (when it is supposed to be made, if such a thing is so regulated), would be to contact the church in Erie. The Jordanville Prayerbook, IIRC, has a little section on when to make the Cross. It may be quite the same as the Old Rite.

The Old Orthodox Prayer Book contains a section on when to bow, when to cross, when to make metania, and when to prostrate. Anyone interested in Old Believer practices should have that book and their Horologion at the very least.

After going back and reviewing several posts I wanted to state that thought I know this is about the correct way to make the Sign of the Cross I wanted to also respond that for mainstream Orthodox I think that there are many who argue, quite correctly, that while they stand by Patriarch Nikon, who started the Nikonian Reforms but was eventually willing to allow the Old Rite to still be practiced, that the dictatorial spirit of the enforcing of the reforms, particularly by Tsar Alexi was totally contrary to Sobornost and thus not legitimate in that it violated Orthodox Tradition. Then the Petrine Reforms under Tsar Peter the [NOT] Great were basically aimed at making the Russian Orthodox Church conform itself to a Lutheran style of governance totally subject to secular rule. The nobility from the time to Tsar Peter I until the latter half of the 19th Century, and even then for the most part, ceased to live pious Orthodox lives engaging in the vices of the Western nobility of parties, alcoholism, tobacco, and promiscuity. It has always been difficult for me to comprehend how Fr.Seraphim (Rose) and many in ROCOR looked upon Tsar Nicholas I so highly as a truly Orthodox Tsar when he fought so terribly to enforce the Nikonian Reforms, the parasitic lifestyle of the boyars, and lead a promiscuous life of several affairs?! My concluding on the side of the Popovsti (Priested Old Believers) was not an easy one as I was drawn to convert to Orthodoxy through the works of Fr.Seraphim (Rose), Elder Cleopa (his biography and the dialogues recorded in the The Truth of Our Faith vol.1&2), the Lives of the saints of Optina, the Spiritual Counsels of the St.Nikodemos the Hagiorite, St.John of San Francisco, St.Seraphim of Sarov, and many others who came after the Raskol in the "mainstream" Orthodox world. However it was the only conclusion I could come to in good conscience. I never close my mind or stop searching and seeking for the fullness of Truth and am always open to learn more and if persuaded to change my mind but it has to accord fully with logic, intuitive wisdom, and my mind & heart. There simply is no way that I could agree that the Petrine Reforms of Church nor the Nikonian Reforms of the Church were legitimate and did not depart from the True Faith. Along with most Popovsti I don't believe that those pious Orthodox who came after the Raskol in the mainstream Church were totally bereft of Ecclesial Grace but the Errors adhered to by them were serious enough to break communion with them.

Paul Meyendorff's book is useful and has a lot of good information on the Nikonian Reforms which is not found in English often and never to such an extent, in my experience. However, his book missed the point! I don't know if this was intentional but I tend to think it was simply due to not taking the Old Believers seriously or never doing a truly thorough study of the issue from their viewpoint. The Priested Old Believers, more often called Old Ritualists, believe that the Nikonian Reforms that were heretical were those which abolished and anathematized Traditional practices and altered the texts and rubrics in such a way as to completely change or remove their underlying meaning which is the Orthodox Faith. This book does not look further than a few centuries in most instances and often favors the views and opinions of Nikonian Apologists to the point of stating they are facts. Tradition confirmed by councils from the beginning cannot be abolished. http://archeodox.wordpress.com/tag/d-varakin/Paul Meyendorff also states that the Old Believers considered changes heretical without qualifying WHICH Old Believers and what sects of Old Believers today still consider which changes heretical. These issues are key as there are some rather extremist Priestless Old Believers who hold to some very different beliefs than what the Priested Old Believers teach and these differences can even be seen in embryonic forms at the time of Raskol. While I am sure some reading this will be upset and state that the Faith is what counts not the Ritual externals let me remind you that the Council of Moscow in 1667 uttered curses on the Old Rite and damned those faithful to it to Hell! Also I want to remind you of the heresy of Peter the Fuller who clung to the altered Trisagion hymn. What was wrong with this altered Trisagion is what the Old Believers see as wrong with the Three Fingered sealing/signing of the Cross: it Crucifies the Trinity. If Ritual is not so important could not such an altered Trisagion be accepted? Furthermore could a Church Council abolish and condemn many current ritual practices of the Orthodox mainstream while promoting new ones? I am not trying to ridicule or infuriate anyone here I simply want to show that this is not nearly as simple as it is often labelled and requires great consideration and review. Look at what happened to the Russian Church after Nikon and Tsar Alexis and to Russia in general!

Paul Meyendorff's book is useful and has a lot of good information on the Nikonian Reforms which is not found in English often and never to such an extent, in my experience. However, his book missed the point! I don't know if this was intentional but I tend to think it was simply due to not taking the Old Believers seriously or never doing a truly thorough study of the issue from their viewpoint. The Priested Old Believers, more often called Old Ritualists, believe that the Nikonian Reforms that were heretical were those which abolished and anathematized Traditional practices and altered the texts and rubrics in such a way as to completely change or remove their underlying meaning which is the Orthodox Faith. This book does not look further than a few centuries in most instances and often favors the views and opinions of Nikonian Apologists to the point of stating they are facts. Tradition confirmed by councils from the beginning cannot be abolished. http://archeodox.wordpress.com/tag/d-varakin/Paul Meyendorff also states that the Old Believers considered changes heretical without qualifying WHICH Old Believers and what sects of Old Believers today still consider which changes heretical. These issues are key as there are some rather extremist Priestless Old Believers who hold to some very different beliefs than what the Priested Old Believers teach and these differences can even be seen in embryonic forms at the time of Raskol. While I am sure some reading this will be upset and state that the Faith is what counts not the Ritual externals let me remind you that the Council of Moscow in 1667 uttered curses on the Old Rite and damned those faithful to it to Hell! Also I want to remind you of the heresy of Peter the Fuller who clung to the altered Trisagion hymn. What was wrong with this altered Trisagion is what the Old Believers see as wrong with the Three Fingered sealing/signing of the Cross: it Crucifies the Trinity. If Ritual is not so important could not such an altered Trisagion be accepted? Furthermore could a Church Council abolish and condemn many current ritual practices of the Orthodox mainstream while promoting new ones? I am not trying to ridicule or infuriate anyone here I simply want to show that this is not nearly as simple as it is often labelled and requires great consideration and review. Look at what happened to the Russian Church after Nikon and Tsar Alexis and to Russia in general!

One thing that has always puzzled me about the so-called Old Belivers is that their analysis seems to always ignore everything outside of Russia.

What do the Old Believers say of, say, the Greeks, who have been practising the Orthodox Christian faith in the manner promulgated by Patriarch Nikon for many centuries?

One thing that has always puzzled me about the so-called Old Belivers is that their analysis seems to always ignore everything outside of Russia.

What do the Old Believers say of, say, the Greeks, who have been practising the Orthodox Christian faith in the manner promulgated by Patriarch Nikon for many centuries?

... (genuine curiosity, not an attack) ...

No offense taken at all!First, what sources have you read or heard from that led you to believe that the Old Believers analysis ignored everything outside Russia?The Old Believers appealed to the Fathers and to the pious Greeks who handed-down the Orthodox Faith to them. Blessed Theodoret and St.Peter Damascene, to name two, are certainly not Russian. Second, please allow me to assume that your initial view of the Old Believers is similar to that which I had when I came to Orthodoxy. Also for the sake of giving you a reply now please excuse me for not providing more detailed information. Generally the Old Believers look to the Council of Florence & Ferrara as the time when heresy took the Greek Orthodox almost entirely and though they later repudiated the heretical false union of Florence and Ferrara it was roughly around this time that heretical influence from the Latins began to be seen in the Greek Orthodox. Whether the innovations were brought about through the influence of the Latins via the Venetians, who during the 16-17th Century ruled various areas of Greece, winning, losing, and winning back and losing again to the Turks some Greek cities all in this time period! I don't know! But I must get some more concrete answers/information about this for you. Yet it is during this time that the Old Believers see the Greek Orthodox as falling away from Tradition. However this subject is delicate and complex as the Priested Old Believers have a generally high opinion and respect for the Kollyvades Fathers! St.Nikodemos the Hagiorite I have seen quoted in several articles/essays written by Belokrinitsky Old Believers where he is called Venerable Nikodim of the Holy Mountain! His work A Handbook of Spiritual Counsel is highly praised! As an aside let me recommend emphatically that you read this book! It is simply the best that I've read for learning how to live Orthodoxy.The Russian Old Believers which I know the most about are the Priested Old Ritualists and I can tell you that they do not just ignore everything that isn't from Old Russia and are thoughtful and intelligent people. As for the Priestless Old Believers I know a little but do not know how they view the revival of Hesychasm on Mt.Athos and in the Slavic lands and Romania under St.Paisus Velichkovsky. Personally the Nikonian Russian Nationalists of today are the ones who seem to look only to Russia and ignore everyone else. I'm always disgusted by the hatred of some Russian Nationalists toward the Georgians. The Priested Old Believers under Patriach Alexander of Moscow helped revive and found the Old Orthodox Church of Georgia which uses the pre-18th Century Georgian Liturgical texts. The Nikonian Synodal Russian Church abolished Georgian Autocephaly in the 18th Century and imposed the use of Church Slavonic and the Nikonian Euchologion. Please let what I've written suffice for now and forgive me for any mistakes and for my poor composition.

One thing that has always puzzled me about the so-called Old Belivers is that their analysis seems to always ignore everything outside of Russia.

What do the Old Believers say of, say, the Greeks, who have been practising the Orthodox Christian faith in the manner promulgated by Patriarch Nikon for many centuries?

... (genuine curiosity, not an attack) ...

No offense taken at all!First, what sources have you read or heard from that led you to believe that the Old Believers analysis ignored everything outside Russia?The Old Believers appealed to the Fathers and to the pious Greeks who handed-down the Orthodox Faith to them. Blessed Theodoret and St.Peter Damascene, to name two, are certainly not Russian. Second, please allow me to assume that your initial view of the Old Believers is similar to that which I had when I came to Orthodoxy. Also for the sake of giving you a reply now please excuse me for not providing more detailed information. Generally the Old Believers look to the Council of Florence & Ferrara as the time when heresy took the Greek Orthodox almost entirely and though they later repudiated the heretical false union of Florence and Ferrara it was roughly around this time that heretical influence from the Latins began to be seen in the Greek Orthodox. Whether the innovations were brought about through the influence of the Latins via the Venetians, who during the 16-17th Century ruled various areas of Greece, winning, losing, and winning back and losing again to the Turks some Greek cities all in this time period! I don't know! But I must get some more concrete answers/information about this for you. Yet it is during this time that the Old Believers see the Greek Orthodox as falling away from Tradition. However this subject is delicate and complex as the Priested Old Believers have a generally high opinion and respect for the Kollyvades Fathers! St.Nikodemos the Hagiorite I have seen quoted in several articles/essays written by Belokrinitsky Old Believers where he is called Venerable Nikodim of the Holy Mountain! His work A Handbook of Spiritual Counsel is highly praised! As an aside let me recommend emphatically that you read this book! It is simply the best that I've read for learning how to live Orthodoxy.The Russian Old Believers which I know the most about are the Priested Old Ritualists and I can tell you that they do not just ignore everything that isn't from Old Russia and are thoughtful and intelligent people. As for the Priestless Old Believers I know a little but do not know how they view the revival of Hesychasm on Mt.Athos and in the Slavic lands and Romania under St.Paisus Velichkovsky. Personally the Nikonian Russian Nationalists of today are the ones who seem to look only to Russia and ignore everyone else. I'm always disgusted by the hatred of some Russian Nationalists toward the Georgians. The Priested Old Believers under Patriach Alexander of Moscow helped revive and found the Old Orthodox Church of Georgia which uses the pre-18th Century Georgian Liturgical texts. The Nikonian Synodal Russian Church abolished Georgian Autocephaly in the 18th Century and imposed the use of Church Slavonic and the Nikonian Euchologion. Please let what I've written suffice for now and forgive me for any mistakes and for my poor composition.

Lenexa, just out of curiosity, are there any websites that you'd recommend to learn more about the priested Old Believers? Or any books written in English? I know a priest of my synod has a book which is a collection of writings from various Old Believers translated into English, but I lent the book out to someone and it's been awhile since I read it myself.

Also, do the Old Believers that you're familiar with ever have discussions or dialogue with any of the Catacomb synods in Russia or elsewhere today? I would think that the Old Believers would be closer to the Greek Old Calendarists and Catacomb Orthodox in regards to Ecumenism than they'd be with the World Orthodox. Even though the Old Believers separated from the other Orthodox Churches before the calendar change of the 1920s and the other Ecumenical events that have followed, have the Old Believers written or discussed about the calendar change and Ecumenism in general?

« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 01:07:29 AM by searn77 »

Logged

Let us the faithful now come together to praise our father, protector and teacher the pillar of the Orthodox faith and firm defender of piety even the wondrous hierarch Philaret and let us glorify our Saviour Who has granted us his incorrupt relics as a manifest sign of his sanctity.

Whne you form your hand into this position, which part of the hand do you touch your forehead with? The part where the three fingers come together? That seem awkward. Just in index finger? Also seems awkward.

I have seen it done with just the two fingers, or with all at once. I tend toward the latter. It is whatever you are used to. I find no problem with it.

Whne you form your hand into this position, which part of the hand do you touch your forehead with? The part where the three fingers come together? That seem awkward. Just in index finger? Also seems awkward.

I have seen it done with just the two fingers, or with all at once. I tend toward the latter. It is whatever you are used to. I find no problem with it.

you cross yourself with the "old" style?

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Whne you form your hand into this position, which part of the hand do you touch your forehead with? The part where the three fingers come together? That seem awkward. Just in index finger? Also seems awkward.

I have seen it done with just the two fingers, or with all at once. I tend toward the latter. It is whatever you are used to. I find no problem with it.

Lenexa, just out of curiosity, are there any websites that you'd recommend to learn more about the priested Old Believers? Or any books written in English? I know a priest of my synod has a book which is a collection of writings from various Old Believers translated into English, but I lent the book out to someone and it's been awhile since I read it myself.

Also, do the Old Believers that you're familiar with ever have discussions or dialogue with any of the Catacomb synods in Russia or elsewhere today? I would think that the Old Believers would be closer to the Greek Old Calendarists and Catacomb Orthodox in regards to Ecumenism than they'd be with the World Orthodox. Even though the Old Believers separated from the other Orthodox Churches before the calendar change of the 1920s and the other Ecumenical events that have followed, have the Old Believers written or discussed about the calendar change and Ecumenism in general?

I recommend this website archeodox.wordpress.com. Unfortunately the owner of that website has not updated it for over a year and never completed translating the "Varakin debate". I was in contact with him for a short time but, sadly, he, last I recall, returned to Russia and I've been unable to get in contact with him. I am slowly trying to learn enough Russian to finish the translation but as a busy father of two small boys progress is slow. Though I would not trade fatherhood or my wonderful sons for anything! Other than that there is really very little online in English. Auto-Translations of the Russian websites, and there are MANY, are of poor quality but can be useful in getting a feel for what's going on and give some knowledge if you can muddle through with a Russian-English dictionary where the meaning is not clear from the auto-translation.Not sure if this helps but there are some videos of Feastday celebration, some showing Metropolitan Kornily, and various Belokrinitsky parish Churches, most of those I've watched are from Andronovo, which can be viewed on Youtube. Granted none of this is English but just watching and seeing what the Old Rite is like in practice is helpful. A lot of my knowledge comes from personal correspondence with Old Believers. Their guidance has been the greatest help to me!In terms of books in English directly about the Priested Old Believers I cannot say that I know of any ever written in English! Sad, I know!A book that is still read and followed by Old Believers is the Domostroi of which there is an English translation by Carolyn Johnston Pouncy. While it was translated for secular historical research purposes it is still a good translation.There is a complete translation of the second redaction of the Life of St.Avvakum translated by Kenneth Brostrom and published by Michigan Slavic publication. http://www.amazon.com/Archpriest-Avvakum-written-Michigan-Translations/dp/0930042336/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333326703&sr=8-1 The annotations and commentary essays in this translation are of a highly secular nature (miracles are never real, etc.) but it is the only complete translation of this book I've come across. This was written by St.Avvakum as a kind of Autobiography but not in a modern sense. It really is very similar in nature to St.Augustine's book the Confessions. The way this man suffered was so horrible that I found myself crying at points when reading it.The Church of the Nativity in Erie, PA, Old-Rite ROCOR, has a bookstore with some excellent books. I particularly love that they translated "A Son of the Church" which is an excellent primer that I always carry around! Yet there are not any books specifically about the Priested Old Believers and the parish itself was originally part of a Pomortsy Priestless Old Believer community. If you want I can privately send you .pdf copies of the priestly editions (for priests with detailed rubrics and prayers only said by the clergy such as the Prothesis) of the Divine Liturgies translated and used by the Old Rite Church in Erie of Sts. John Chrysostom and Basil the Great and the Pre-Sanctified of St.Gregory the Dialogist. These are in both Church Slavonic and English like their prayerbook. To post them here would violate forum policy.PLEASE tell me the name of the book you mentioned as I did not know such a compilation in English existed?The Priested Old Believers I'm familiar with personally don't really pay much attention to the issues of Ecumenism and the Calendar change as it really has not affected them much. However recently there was a schism in which a group broke away from the Russian Belokrinitsky Metropolitanate over what the group sees as the Ecumenism of Met. Kornily and the monk Alimpiev. There was an event in the 19th Century in Russia in which an Encyclical was published, 1862, in which the Russian Belokrinitsky bishops clarified their stance on many issues and yet their clarification sparked a schism over the encyclical stating what some saw as heretical views particularly with regard to Ecclesiological issues. I view the current schism as similar to that event though I many be drawing a false parallel as really do not have enough information to make an informed judgment.As far as any dialogue with Old Calendarists I posted this in another discussion

I was just wondering if there's any type of communion between any of the Old Calendarist jurisdictions and Russian Old Believers? I know there are some Old Believers that have priests and bishops so I was just wondering if any of them have a relationship to any Old Calendarists?

There are two groups of Popovsti that have bishops and neither has communion with any Old Calendarists who though they often sympathize with them they still see as being "Nikonians"1)The Belokrinitskaya (began in 1846 with Metropolitan Amvrosii who converted Old Orthodoxy after being a bishop in the Patriarchate of Constantinople) 2)Novozybkovskaya (begun by Archbishop Nikola (Pozdnev) and Bishop Stephan (Rastorguev) in September 1929). Currently they are not in communion and until recently there was a lot of polemics against the Belokrinitskaya by the Novozybkov. In recent years the schisms from the Novozybkov such as the "Slavo-Iberian" Old Orthodox have been resolved and resulted in the founding the of the Old Orthodox Church of Georgia which follows the Georgian Rite before the 18th Century Georgian liturgical reforms. http://www.oldorthodox.ge/ It will take time for the Novozybkovskaya and Belokrinitskaya to restore communion and unify but I think that with the recent cessation of polemics against St.Metropolian Amvrosii by the Novozybkovskaya there is real hope for such an event in the near future.

Having said all that, I gotta be honest I'm suprised that no one has mentioned the "Kirykites" (Extremist-Matthewite Schism, in my opinion) formal talks with the Russian Old-Orthodox Moscow Patriarchate AKA the Novozybkov Hierarchy which is headed by Patriarch Alexander. I really have had a hard time understanding how there can be intercommunion between them since the Kirykites follow the contemporary Greek Rite which according to Old Orthodoxy is not a legitimate expression of Orthodoxy but in fact is heterodoxy. I will not argue this here but am simply explaining how what for many "Nikonians" is simply the normative way of making Sign of the Cross, making the "seal" with three fingers (thumb, index, middle) is blasphemy to Old Believers because they believe the "seal" should be made with the two fingers (index and middle) representing the one person of our Lord in two natures because we are sealed in the Blood of the Lamb, we confess and seal ourselves with Christ Crucified and as Old Believers understand it this is the primary and original purpose of the Sign of the Cross. To seal oneself with the Trinity is to place the Trinity on the Cross which is blasphemy to an Old Believer. This is just one difference but I think that it is key to understanding the divide between Old Believers and "Nikonians" or mainstream Orthodox. Old Believers do not believe there is such as thing as separation between Ritual and Doctrine. Yes they do agree that there were different Rites but they believe there are key aspects or practices that are of Apostolic Tradition which are identical in all Rites that maintain fidelity to Apostolic Tradition. Now, why the talks between the Old-Orthodox Patriarchate and Kirykite Metropolitanate. Here is an entry I found on the Kirykite website http://genuineorthodoxchurch.com/A_Time_Line_of_the_20th_and_21st_Centuries.htm

Quote

2008 AD — Council of Athens, convened and presided over by Metropolitan Kirykos of Mesogaias, and attended by hierarchs and clergy representing Greece, Africa, Russia, Cyprus and Romania, enters into theological dialogue with the Novozybkov Old Rite Synod of Russia under Patriarch Alexander of Moscow.

Personally I think that Metropolitan Kirykos following the Matthewite belief that the Greek Church went immediately into schism and bereft of sacramental grace in 1924 with the implementation of the Calendar change is wanting to find out more about the Old Believer Popovsti (priested Old Believers) and their beliefs about the Russian Church going into heresy with the Nikonian reforms. But I really am at a loss as far as what the ultimate goal of these talks really is? I can only imagine that one group is hoping to convert the other?http://www.churchgoc.org/gegonota/rdc2008.html

Also I read about the repentence, 2007, of a certain Belokrinitsky Hieromonk, Simeon (Durasova), who had previously stated in 2005 that he believed that the Belokrinitsky, Novozybkovsky, ROCA, and Greek Old Calendarists (not sure who exactly he meant be this) all were the Church.http://www.staroobrad.ru/modules.php?name=Pages&pa=showpage&pid=89

Lenexa, just out of curiosity, are there any websites that you'd recommend to learn more about the priested Old Believers? Or any books written in English? I know a priest of my synod has a book which is a collection of writings from various Old Believers translated into English, but I lent the book out to someone and it's been awhile since I read it myself.

Also, do the Old Believers that you're familiar with ever have discussions or dialogue with any of the Catacomb synods in Russia or elsewhere today? I would think that the Old Believers would be closer to the Greek Old Calendarists and Catacomb Orthodox in regards to Ecumenism than they'd be with the World Orthodox. Even though the Old Believers separated from the other Orthodox Churches before the calendar change of the 1920s and the other Ecumenical events that have followed, have the Old Believers written or discussed about the calendar change and Ecumenism in general?

I recommend this website archeodox.wordpress.com. Unfortunately the owner of that website has not updated it for over a year and never completed translating the "Varakin debate". I was in contact with him for a short time but, sadly, he, last I recall, returned to Russia and I've been unable to get in contact with him. I am slowly trying to learn enough Russian to finish the translation but as a busy father of two small boys progress is slow. Though I would not trade fatherhood or my wonderful sons for anything! Other than that there is really very little online in English. Auto-Translations of the Russian websites, and there are MANY, are of poor quality but can be useful in getting a feel for what's going on and give some knowledge if you can muddle through with a Russian-English dictionary where the meaning is not clear from the auto-translation.Not sure if this helps but there are some videos of Feastday celebration, some showing Metropolitan Kornily, and various Belokrinitsky parish Churches, most of those I've watched are from Andronovo, which can be viewed on Youtube. Granted none of this is English but just watching and seeing what the Old Rite is like in practice is helpful. A lot of my knowledge comes from personal correspondence with Old Believers. Their guidance has been the greatest help to me!In terms of books in English directly about the Priested Old Believers I cannot say that I know of any ever written in English! Sad, I know!A book that is still read and followed by Old Believers is the Domostroi of which there is an English translation by Carolyn Johnston Pouncy. While it was translated for secular historical research purposes it is still a good translation.There is a complete translation of the second redaction of the Life of St.Avvakum translated by Kenneth Brostrom and published by Michigan Slavic publication. http://www.amazon.com/Archpriest-Avvakum-written-Michigan-Translations/dp/0930042336/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333326703&sr=8-1 The annotations and commentary essays in this translation are of a highly secular nature (miracles are never real, etc.) but it is the only complete translation of this book I've come across. This was written by St.Avvakum as a kind of Autobiography but not in a modern sense. It really is very similar in nature to St.Augustine's book the Confessions. The way this man suffered was so horrible that I found myself crying at points when reading it.The Church of the Nativity in Erie, PA, Old-Rite ROCOR, has a bookstore with some excellent books. I particularly love that they translated "A Son of the Church" which is an excellent primer that I always carry around! Yet there are not any books specifically about the Priested Old Believers and the parish itself was originally part of a Pomortsy Priestless Old Believer community. If you want I can privately send you .pdf copies of the priestly editions (for priests with detailed rubrics and prayers only said by the clergy such as the Prothesis) of the Divine Liturgies translated and used by the Old Rite Church in Erie of Sts. John Chrysostom and Basil the Great and the Pre-Sanctified of St.Gregory the Dialogist. These are in both Church Slavonic and English like their prayerbook. To post them here would violate forum policy.PLEASE tell me the name of the book you mentioned as I did not know such a compilation in English existed?The Priested Old Believers I'm familiar with personally don't really pay much attention to the issues of Ecumenism and the Calendar change as it really has not affected them much. However recently there was a schism in which a group broke away from the Russian Belokrinitsky Metropolitanate over what the group sees as the Ecumenism of Met. Kornily and the monk Alimpiev. There was an event in the 19th Century in Russia in which an Encyclical was published, 1862, in which the Russian Belokrinitsky bishops clarified their stance on many issues and yet their clarification sparked a schism over the encyclical stating what some saw as heretical views particularly with regard to Ecclesiological issues. I view the current schism as similar to that event though I many be drawing a false parallel as really do not have enough information to make an informed judgment.As far as any dialogue with Old Calendarists I posted this in another discussion

I was just wondering if there's any type of communion between any of the Old Calendarist jurisdictions and Russian Old Believers? I know there are some Old Believers that have priests and bishops so I was just wondering if any of them have a relationship to any Old Calendarists?

There are two groups of Popovsti that have bishops and neither has communion with any Old Calendarists who though they often sympathize with them they still see as being "Nikonians"1)The Belokrinitskaya (began in 1846 with Metropolitan Amvrosii who converted Old Orthodoxy after being a bishop in the Patriarchate of Constantinople) 2)Novozybkovskaya (begun by Archbishop Nikola (Pozdnev) and Bishop Stephan (Rastorguev) in September 1929). Currently they are not in communion and until recently there was a lot of polemics against the Belokrinitskaya by the Novozybkov. In recent years the schisms from the Novozybkov such as the "Slavo-Iberian" Old Orthodox have been resolved and resulted in the founding the of the Old Orthodox Church of Georgia which follows the Georgian Rite before the 18th Century Georgian liturgical reforms. http://www.oldorthodox.ge/ It will take time for the Novozybkovskaya and Belokrinitskaya to restore communion and unify but I think that with the recent cessation of polemics against St.Metropolian Amvrosii by the Novozybkovskaya there is real hope for such an event in the near future.

Having said all that, I gotta be honest I'm suprised that no one has mentioned the "Kirykites" (Extremist-Matthewite Schism, in my opinion) formal talks with the Russian Old-Orthodox Moscow Patriarchate AKA the Novozybkov Hierarchy which is headed by Patriarch Alexander. I really have had a hard time understanding how there can be intercommunion between them since the Kirykites follow the contemporary Greek Rite which according to Old Orthodoxy is not a legitimate expression of Orthodoxy but in fact is heterodoxy. I will not argue this here but am simply explaining how what for many "Nikonians" is simply the normative way of making Sign of the Cross, making the "seal" with three fingers (thumb, index, middle) is blasphemy to Old Believers because they believe the "seal" should be made with the two fingers (index and middle) representing the one person of our Lord in two natures because we are sealed in the Blood of the Lamb, we confess and seal ourselves with Christ Crucified and as Old Believers understand it this is the primary and original purpose of the Sign of the Cross. To seal oneself with the Trinity is to place the Trinity on the Cross which is blasphemy to an Old Believer. This is just one difference but I think that it is key to understanding the divide between Old Believers and "Nikonians" or mainstream Orthodox. Old Believers do not believe there is such as thing as separation between Ritual and Doctrine. Yes they do agree that there were different Rites but they believe there are key aspects or practices that are of Apostolic Tradition which are identical in all Rites that maintain fidelity to Apostolic Tradition. Now, why the talks between the Old-Orthodox Patriarchate and Kirykite Metropolitanate. Here is an entry I found on the Kirykite website http://genuineorthodoxchurch.com/A_Time_Line_of_the_20th_and_21st_Centuries.htm

Quote

2008 AD — Council of Athens, convened and presided over by Metropolitan Kirykos of Mesogaias, and attended by hierarchs and clergy representing Greece, Africa, Russia, Cyprus and Romania, enters into theological dialogue with the Novozybkov Old Rite Synod of Russia under Patriarch Alexander of Moscow.

Personally I think that Metropolitan Kirykos following the Matthewite belief that the Greek Church went immediately into schism and bereft of sacramental grace in 1924 with the implementation of the Calendar change is wanting to find out more about the Old Believer Popovsti (priested Old Believers) and their beliefs about the Russian Church going into heresy with the Nikonian reforms. But I really am at a loss as far as what the ultimate goal of these talks really is? I can only imagine that one group is hoping to convert the other?http://www.churchgoc.org/gegonota/rdc2008.html

Also I read about the repentence, 2007, of a certain Belokrinitsky Hieromonk, Simeon (Durasova), who had previously stated in 2005 that he believed that the Belokrinitsky, Novozybkovsky, ROCA, and Greek Old Calendarists (not sure who exactly he meant be this) all were the Church.http://www.staroobrad.ru/modules.php?name=Pages&pa=showpage&pid=89

Thanks for the thorough reply. I'll try taking a look at youtube for those videos of Metropolitan Kornily and the Belokrinitsky parish Churches and I'll also have to check out those books you've listed. I knew of the Erie, PA Church but stupidly had not thought to look there for books regarding the Old Believers.

And I forgot that I had already asked you that question before about talks between the Old Believers and Old Calendarists. Although I'm still curious as to if there were any talks/interactions between the Old Believers and the Catacomb Churches of Russia since both were persecuted under the Soviets?

I read your post from 2010 again and it is indeed interesting that the Old Ritualist synod that you mentioned had talks with a Matthewite synod. I wonder what ever became of these talks? The Matthewites, btw, don't believe that the Greek State Church lost sacramental grace immediately when the new calendar was implemented in 1924. They do believe however that the calendar change was a schismatic and un-Orthodox act, but they don't believe that grace was immediately lost by the State Church when they changed their calendar.

Also I'm reading a pretty interesting book now that you may have heard of called Freedom for an Old Believer by Paul John Wigowsky which is a fictional story about an Old Believer family, which can be read for free online. He also wrote another short book on Old Believer history and tradition. Both can be found here:http://wigowsky.com/products.html

Have you read The Old Believers and the World of Antichrist by Robert O. Crummey, as I picked this book out from the library but have just begun reading it?

And yes, I'd definitely be interested in those PDF copies of the Divine Liturgies if you don't mind. I'll send you a pm later with my email address.

Logged

Let us the faithful now come together to praise our father, protector and teacher the pillar of the Orthodox faith and firm defender of piety even the wondrous hierarch Philaret and let us glorify our Saviour Who has granted us his incorrupt relics as a manifest sign of his sanctity.

Whne you form your hand into this position, which part of the hand do you touch your forehead with? The part where the three fingers come together? That seem awkward. Just in index finger? Also seems awkward.

I have seen it done with just the two fingers, or with all at once. I tend toward the latter. It is whatever you are used to. I find no problem with it.

you cross yourself with the "old" style?

does anyone else at your parish do it like that?

I do not make it a habit of watching what everyone else in my parish is doing, nor do I think that they should be watching me. I come to Church to pray and not be seen. If you are watching someone close enough to tell how they are making the sign of the cross, there is something wrong.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Fr.Matthew Raphael Johnson's book is great and provides the "bigger picture" of what was really going on in socio-economic and political areas with regard to the Old Believer/Old Rite Movement. Yet my biggest criticism of this book, though it is great as it does have articles and interviews by Old Rite bishops Met.Andrian, Memory Eternal! and Met.Kornily, is that Fr.Matthew Raphael Johnson dismisses the need for any discussion or argumentation over the actual Ritual reforms of Nikon stating that argument over "two fingers and alleluias" is non-sensical. Talk directly to any Old Believer clergy or serious lay person and they will start with explaining why two fingers NOT three is so important. Believe me I've had more than thirty e-mail exchanges over this and other Liturgical practices altered or abolished by Nikon and later Moscow Council of 1667 and it is still as important and vital an issue as ever to Old Believers! But I personally love Fr.Matthew Raphael Johnson for the work he's done and is doing and I still would say that while Sobornosti is not directly about Priested Old Believers, for the most part, it is a very good book for finally presenting essays and arguments from the Old Believer point of view and showing why ALL of Old Russia and the pre-modern Orthodox societies with their economic and hierarchical structure was so important and still is important and how this was fundamentally altered so tragically later by Tsar Peter I and Catherine II but beginning with the Reforms of Nikon and Tsar Alexis.

With regard to any dialogue between the Catacomb Russian Orthodox I can't say I know of any going on right now or recently other than what Bishop Daniel of Erie was engaged in as a personal mission when ROCOR was viewed by the mainstream as Non-Canonical Extremists. Within Russia itself I can't say I know of any dialogue other than what I posted from one of Vladimir Moss's books in another discussion but this instance was quite unique and took place back in the era shortly after the October Revolution.

This following selection from Vladimir Moss book New Zion in Babylon The Orthodox Church in the Twentieth Century gives an interesting look into the history of the Old Believers in the early Twentieth Century. It gives what I see as damning testimony against the Novozybkov Hierarchy who are now called the Russian Old-Orthodox Church not to be confused with the Belokrinitskaya who are called the Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church. It is interesting that Archbishop Andrew later joined the Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy while also remaining an Archbishop within the mainstream Russian Orthodox Church. In doing this research I am curious about what the Belokrinitskaya ecclesiology is? It seems very similar to that of the Old Calendarist Synod in Resistance under Met.Cyprian (Cyprianites) in that the mainstream Church is regarded as having ecclesial grace; world Orthodoxy is still regarded as being the Church.

Archbishop Andrew and the Old RitualistsAs we have seen, Archbishop Andrew was a thorn in the side both ofMetropolitan Peter and of Metropolitan Sergius. In 1922 he had made his Ufadiocese autonomous on the basis of the Patriarch’s ukaz № 362, and by theend of his life he had consecrated as many as 40 secret bishops, whosesuccessors, it is claimed, have survived to the present day. Of hardly lessimportance were his controversial relations with the Old Ritualists, which, ifsuccessful, would have ended the 250-year-old schism in the Russian Church.Just after the February revolution, Archbishop Andrew presided over theAll-Russian Congress of Yedinovertsy (that is, converts to Orthodoxy fromthe Old Ritualists who were allowed to retain the Old Rite) in Nizhni-Novgorod. In May, 1917, together with the future hieromartyr-bishop Joseph(Petrovykh) and the yedinoverets Protopriest (later bishop and hieromartyr)Simon (Sheev), he visited the Rogozhskoe cemetery in Moscow, the spiritualcentre of the Belokrinitsky Old Ritualist hierarchy, and handed over a letterfrom the Congress expressing a desire for union. However, the reply of theOld Ritualist bishops was negative.But Vladyka’s sympathy for the Old Ritualists went further than theseearly actions would suggest, and further than the opinion, which wasgenerally accepted in his time, that the anathemas on the Old Rite were unjustand should be removed. Influenced by one of his teachers at the Academy,Professor N. Kapterev, he adopted a still more “liberal” attitude towards theOld Ritualists that has been a subject of controversy to this day. Whilecontinuing to recognize the pre-revolutionary Church, he considered that ithad fallen into caesaropapism, or the “Niconian heresy” as he called it, andthat it was “Niconianism” that had led to the Russian revolution and to therenovationist and sergianist submission of the Church to Soviet power. Heoften referred to the Orthodox as “Niconians”, while calling the Old Ritualists“Ancient Orthodox”, whose schism was not a schism, but precisely a protestagainst this unlawful encroachment on the freedom of the Church. ThereforeVladyka Andrew's attempted rapprochement with the Old Ritualists must beseen in the context of the main struggle of the times - the struggle of theChurch against Soviet power and renovationist and sergianist caesaropapism.Let us turn to Archbishop Andrew’s own account of his dealings with theOld Believers:- “In September, 1917 the so-called beglopopovtsi [i.e. those OldRitualists who accepted runaway priests from the official Russian Church, buthad no hierarchy of their own] approached me with the request that I become190 Andreev, Is the Grace of God Present in the Soviet Church?, Wildwood, Alberta: MonasteryPress, 2000, p. 54.82their bishop. At this time I was in Moscow at the 1917 Council. I agreed inprinciple, but on condition that my flock in Ufa should remain in myjurisdiction. It was Lev Alexeevich Molekhonov who was conductingnegotiations with me on the side of the beglopopovtsi. He assembled inMoscow a small convention of representatives of other communities of theirs.At this convention, after long discussions, they agreed that my union withthis group of Old Ritualists should take place in the following manner: Iwould come without vestments to the church of the beglopopovtsi in Moscow(on M. Andronievskaia street). They would meet me with the question: ‘Whoare you?’ I would reply at first that I was a bishop of the Orthodox, One,Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and them I would read the Symbol ofFaith and a lengthy confession of faith, which everyone ordained to theepiscopate would read. Then I, at the request of the beglopopovtsi, wouldanoint myself with the same chrism which they in 1917 called and consideredto be patriarchal, which remained [to them] from Patriarch Joseph [(1642-1652), the last Moscow Patriarch recognized by both the Orthodox and theOld Ritualists]. With this my ‘rite of reception’ would come to an end.“My spiritual father, Archbishop Anthony of Kharkov, knew about allthese negotiations, and Patriarch Tikhon was informed about everything.They approved my intentions.“Thus from both sides everything was measured, calculated, thought outand humanly speaking worked out in a manner completely acceptable for all.After this I went to Ufa.“But then the events of 1918 and 1919 took place. The beglopopovtsi lostme for a long time. I was in Siberia and then in a difficult incarceration… Butin 1925, when I was in exile in Askhabad [in 1923 Archbishop Andrew hadagain been arrested and sentenced to three years exile in Central Asia, first inAshkhabad, and then in Tashkent], the beglopopovets ArchimandriteClement came to me and began to ask me again that I should become bishopfor the beglopopovtsi…“I agreed to do everything that I had promised to L.A. Molekhonov…Moreover, I agreed to become bishop for the beglopopovtsi only on conditionthat Archimandrite Clement should himself receive consecration to theepiscopate and would become de facto an active bishop, for I myself waschained to Askhabad or some other place for a long time.“Clement accepted all my conditions and on August 28, 1925 we for thefirst time prayed together with him to God in a truly Orthodox, that is, notcaesaropapist church [!]; I on my side had fulfilled everything that I had beenblessed to do by Patriarch Tikhon. On September 3, 1925 I (together withBishop Rufinus) consecrated Clement to the episcopate, giving him the83authority to be my deputy, as it were, as long as I did not enjoy freedom ofmovement…“After this we parted on the same day of September 3.“But soon I received news from Bishop Clement that the beglopopovtsirecognised neither me nor him as their bishops and that he, Clement, hadbeen received in his existing rank into the number of the bishops of theBelokrinitsky hierarchy.”The renovationist Vestnik Sviashchennago Sinoda (Herald of the Holy Synod)reported: "According to the report of Archimandrite Clement, Bishop Andrewdid not agree to the second rite (i.e. chrismation) for a long time, and agreedonly after sustained discussions with, or demands from Clement, based onthe 95th canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (which orders that hereticsshould be united to Orthodoxy only through chrismation)."Archbishop Andrew said the following to Clement before the chrismation:'It is not your hand that is being lain upon me, but the hand of that patriarchwho consecrated your ancient chrism: when you read the proclamation, andwhen I recite the heresies and confession of faith before chrismation, then Iimmediately become your bishop and can commune with you. But since I amyour bishop, that means that a priest cannot anoint a bishop.'"After this, Archbishop Andrew anointed himself with the Old Ritualistchrism [more exactly: the chrism consecrated by the Orthodox PatriarchJoseph] and read out the following confession of faith: 'I, Bishop Andrew, ofthe One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, who was consecrated to therank of bishop on October 4, 1907 in front of the holy relics of the Kazanhierarchs Gurias and Barsanuphius and on the day of their commemoration,and who am now suffering persecution from the ruling hierarchy for thefreedom of the Church of Christ, confess before the Holy Church thatPatriarch Nicon in his wisdom disrupted the life and love of the CatholicChurch, thereby laying the beginnings of the schism in the Russian Church.On the basis of Patriarch Nicon's mistake was established that caesaropapismwhich has, since the time of Patriarch Nicon, undermined all the roots ofRussian Church life and was finally expressed in the formation of the socalled'Living Church', which is at present the ruling hierarchy and which hastransgressed all the church canons... But I, although I am a sinful andunworthy bishop, by the mercy of God ascribe myself to no ruling hierarchyand have always remembered the command of the holy Apostle Peter:'Pasture the flock of God without lording it over God's inheritance'."Hearing about the events in Askhabad, Metropolitan Peter, the patriarchallocum tenens, banned Archbishop Andrew from serving, although a latersearch in the Synodal offices revealed no such decree, as witnessed by a84Spravka by the Chancellor of the Patriarchal Synod, Archbishop Pitirim ofDmitrov on October 27, 1927 (№ 1799).However, Archbishop Andrew was not inclined to obey such a decree,whether genuine or not; for he considered Metropolitan Peter to be “anautocrat in clerical guise” who had ascended the ecclesiastical ladder bymeans of an intrigue, and the whole system of the succession of power in theChurch by means of secret wills to be uncanonical. Thus he continued to“ascribe myself to no ruling hierarchy”, and to rule the Ufa diocese on anautonomous basis until the convening of a Council of the whole RussianChurch, consecrating no less than 40 bishops for the Catacomb Church –about 30 already by the beginning of 1927.As regards the supposed ban on Archbishop Andrew by MetropolitanPeter, we must conclude either, if we are to believe Metropolitan Sergius, that"it may have been lost on the road", or, much more likely, that it neverexisted.Unfortunately, this supposed ban by Metropolitan Peter caused him to bedistrusted for a time by Archbishop Andrew. Fortunately, however, thisdistrust did not last, as we shall see…Archbishop Andrew returned from exile to Ufa in 1926, and the peoplevisited their Vladyka in unending streams. However, the Ufa clergy led bythe newly appointed Bishop John met him with hostility and coldness.One of his parishioners wrote in her diary: "The people search him out andrevere him, and all the parishioners of various churches invite him to them,while the clergy does not accept him. There are many rumours, and no oneknows what to believe... Bishop Andrew took up his residence in the workers'quarter on Samara street not far from the Simeonov church. He served in theSimeonov church, and in such a way, according to another eyewitness, that"we ascended to heaven and did not want to come down."In July, 1926, Metropolitan Peter’s deputy, Metropolitan Sergius, renewedthe attack on Archbishop Andrew, and banned him from serving. However,even if we assume that the charges against him were justified, this ban wasinvalid, since it transgressed several canons according to which a bishop mustbe first be summoned to trial by bishops, and if he does not obey, he must besummoned again through two bishops who are sent to bring him, and then athird time through two bishops, and only when he does not appear the thirdtime will the Council pronounce its decisions about him. In the case ofArchbishop Andrew, he was not only not invited to a trial, but the sentenceagainst him was passed, not by a Council, but by a single bishop like himself.85For similar reasons, his bans on Catacomb bishops in later years were alsoinvalid.Archbishop Andrew wrote: “This Sergius, knowing that I was in Ufa,wrote to my flock a letter, filled with slander against me, as if I had fallenaway from Orthodoxy, as if I by the second rite had united myself to thebeglopopovtsi, etc. I had no difficulty in proving that this was a lie and thatthe deputy of the locum tenens was simply a liar!…“And so Metropolitan Sergius slandered me, travelling along this welltroddenpath of slander and lies. But in Ufa amidst the ‘Niconians’ there weresome thinking people and they did not believe Sergius’ slander, as they didnot believe Peter’s. Moreover, two things took place which served to help mepersonally and help the Church in general.“At that time I had two vicar-bishops with me – Anthony [Milovidov, ofUst-Katavsky] and Pitirim [of Nizhegorod, later Schema-Bishop Peter(Ladygin)]. Both of them wanted to check out everything that related to me inthe matter of the reunion with Old Ritualism. Anthony set off to check thingsout in Moscow, obtained the trust of people in the chancellery of thePatriarchal Synod and personally got into the Synodal archive, so as to studythe documents relating to me.“You can imagine his surprise when in the spring of 1927 he becameconvinced that there were absolutely no documents about me in the Synodalarchives, neither about my ‘departure into schism’, nor about my ‘ban’, etc.He asked in the Synod what this meant, and received the exceptionallycharacteristic reply: ‘Metropolitan Peter was probably only wanting tofrighten Bishop Andrew’!…“Bishop Pitirim, a 70-year-old monk who used to be on Old Athos, a cleverman, although unlettered, went not to the sergianist Synod, which he did notrecognize, but to Yaroslavl to Metropolitan Agathangelus, so as to tell himeverything concerning Church life in Ufa in detail and to hear his opinion.Metropolitan Agathangel heard Bishop Pitirim out very attentively for severalhours (two days) and told my vicar-bishop Pitirim (whom I had consecratedto the episcopate during my first exile in Tedzhent in June, 1925), that heshould not be upset, that my ecclesiastical behaviour was irreproachable andthat only in the interests of ecclesiastical peace he, Metropolitan Agathangel,advised me not to carry out any hierarchical consecrations but in the interestsof the enlightenment of the flock in Ufa and other faithful sons of the Church,he, Metropolitan Agathangel, advised me to present my whole ‘case’ beforethe judgement of the nearest – at least three – bishops.“’But this is only my advice, and it will be clearer how to act on the spot,”said Metropolitan Agathangel to Bishop Pitirim.86“Bishop Pitirim, on returning to Ufa, told me about all this, and BishopHabbakuk of Old Ufa decided immediately to carry out the advice ofMetropolitan Agathangel and on February 3, 1927 he invited Bishop Pitirimand Anthony to a convention in Ufa, while he asked me for all the materialsthat would explain my ecclesiastical behaviour.“On February 3, 1927 these three bishops issued under their signatures an‘Act with regard to the Affair of Archbishop Andrew’, in which they laid outthe circumstances of the affair and came to the conclusion that I had not‘departed’ anywhere, and that Metropolitan Sergius’ slander was in essence alight-minded and shameful intrusion into a holy affair.”From October 3-6, 1927 a diocesan Congress took place in Ufa at which the“Act” was approved, Archbishop Andrew vindicated “as their true Ufaarchpastor" and Metropolitan Sergius accused of lying. Vladyka Andrew'sown view of his episcopal authority is contained in his reply to the Address ofthe clergy-lay assembly of March 26, 1926: "I remain a bishop for those whorecognize me as their bishop, who fed me for the six years I was in prison,and who need me. I don't impose my episcopate on anyone."However, Archbishop Andrew’s relations with the Old Ritualists did notend there. When Vladyka was released from prison in 1931, he began to visitthe Rogozhskoe cemetery again, reasoning “that I am for them not a stranger,but their own, and I am for them not a hostile and harmful ‘Niconian’, but atrue bishop of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”. It seems thathe then entered into communion with Archbishop Meletius (Kartushin) ofMoscow, the first-hierarch of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy, and together withhim consecrated a secret bishop, Basil Guslinsky.Then he was again exiled. During this period, on April 1, 1932, priests ofthe Belokrinitsky hierarchy sent him the Holy Gifts and an omophorion.Archbishop Andrew now considered himself to be in full communion withArchbishop Meletius “in the holy ecclesiastical dogmas, and in prayer, and inecclesiastical discipline (that is, in the holy rites)”. At the same time, herejected the idea that he had “transferred” to the Belokrinitsky hierarchy, andinsisted on remaining Bishop of Ufa, retaining “full freedom of Church action,arousing the suspicions of nobody”. Archbishop Meletius appears to haveaccepted this condition.It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the Old Ritualists used the goodintentions of the Orthodox bishop and future hieromartyr to deceive him. Heconsidered that, as a result of his actions, “the schism, as a schism, hasideologically speaking come to an end”. But he was tricked by thebeglopopovtsi, who rejected both him and the bishop he had consecrated forthem, Clement. There was not then, and has not been since then, any union87between the Orthodox Church and the Old Ritualists of the Belokrinitskyhierarchy. Nor can there be without the repentance of the latter, because,apart from the fact that the Belokrinitsky hierarchy has no apostolicsuccession, it, as the “Andrewites” themselves admit, followed the sergianistsin becoming a tool of Soviet propaganda. 191